I'm a big fan of Jekyll (and more recently, Gatsby), and I think you're correct in saying that in most cases where a CMS is used, a static site generator would be a better option.
However, I see a couple of problems standing in the way of more widespread adoption of static site generators:
1) I've never seen a static site generator that non-technical users felt comfortable with. Programmers like terminal interfaces. Your average user in 2018 has probably never opened the terminal.
2) Possibly even more significant, I don't think the people making the choice to use a CMS for a simple business-info or blog site are aware of the trade-offs that they're making, or of the benefits that a static site will provide down the line. For a lot of small business owners I've spoken with, Wordpress is basically synonymous with "web presence."
I wonder if there's a market for a web-based GUI like what Wordpress provides, but which runs jekyll under the hood and uploads the files to s3 or something like that. Is this what companies like Squarespace and Wix do?
However, I see a couple of problems standing in the way of more widespread adoption of static site generators:
1) I've never seen a static site generator that non-technical users felt comfortable with. Programmers like terminal interfaces. Your average user in 2018 has probably never opened the terminal.
2) Possibly even more significant, I don't think the people making the choice to use a CMS for a simple business-info or blog site are aware of the trade-offs that they're making, or of the benefits that a static site will provide down the line. For a lot of small business owners I've spoken with, Wordpress is basically synonymous with "web presence."
I wonder if there's a market for a web-based GUI like what Wordpress provides, but which runs jekyll under the hood and uploads the files to s3 or something like that. Is this what companies like Squarespace and Wix do?