The debate really comes down to value vs. price and it’s quite difficult to separate them sometimes. Almost everyone knows that less expensive web hosting can be had, just like almost everyone knows that there are less expensive vehicles than (say) Mercedes. It’s really all about what benefits you want from the features that are offered. One side in the debate is not right and the other side correct, it’s a personal choice so I’m not trying to convince you that you’re not correct and I am. I am offering a viewpoint that may be different that yours.
Who doesn’t wish the price was lower (on just about anything) but when I look at the speed at which a site can be designed and developed, the ease at which at site can be deployed, the ease with which CMS can be setup and used by the client, and the ease with which the site can be maintained after going live, it’s difficult to argue that Webflow should be priced the same as a basic no-frills web hosting product. Everything that you can do in Webflow can be done in another way but is that really, honestly, cost-effective? I don’t know your workflow but I can say for myself that just the ease of being able to deploy and maintain a site, along with having the client deal with their own CMS gives Webflow a lot of value for me (and that’s 100% subjective for each of us).
Your client(s) may complain about an extra $10 (or £10) a month, or whatever the figure is, but it’s quite likely you’d have to charge more than the annual difference for the extra time it takes you to design and develop the site, and then more yet for deployment and/or maintenance. Maybe that’s not the case for you but it certainly factors into the equation for me.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide a counterpoint.