WordCamp US controversy: Matt Mullenweg targets WP Engine, calling it the ‘Cancer’ of WordPress

WordCamp US 2024 took an unexpected turn when Matt Mullenweg, founder of Automattic, sharply criticized WP Engine, particularly its majority investor, Silver Lake. Mullenweg displayed WP Engine’s CEO on screen, urging customers to reconsider their contracts and emphasizing how little the company contributes to WordPress’s core development—only 40 hours a week compared to Automattic’s 3,915.

The reaction was immediate and divided. Some in the community supported Matt’s critique, aligning it with concerns about private equity firms profiting from open-source projects without meaningful contributions. They argue that Silver Lake’s ownership is squeezing customers without giving back to WordPress, threatening the collaborative spirit that has sustained the project. For Matt, this behavior from a multi-billion-dollar firm is a betrayal of the values the WordPress community holds dear.

Others, however, saw Mullenweg’s comments as inappropriate, questioning whether it was right for him to publicly target WP Engine at such a community-driven event. Several attendees noted that this critique could have been better handled privately or through other channels. The critique also raised questions of conflict of interest, with many noting that Automattic, which owns WordPress.com, directly competes with WP Engine in the hosting space.

In his follow-up article, Matt Mullenweg intensified his criticism of WP Engine, saying, “This is one of the many reasons they are a cancer to WordPress, and it’s important to remember that unchecked, cancer will spread. WP Engine is setting a poor standard that others may look at and think is ok to replicate. We must set a higher standard to ensure WordPress is here for the next 100 years.”

Additionally, this incident drew attention to the larger issue of how companies leveraging open-source software should give back to the community. There’s no formal requirement for contributions, but as Matt pointed out, companies like WP Engine, which heavily benefit from WordPress, should support the project more actively.

Implications

Mullenweg’s critique goes beyond open-source ethics and into business strategy. The public nature of the rebuke could lead to reputational damage for WP Engine, especially given WordCamp’s broad reach within the WordPress ecosystem. With an audience that values both the technical superiority of their hosting solutions and their commitment to the WordPress project, this could prompt migrations to other hosting providers or intensified scrutiny on how WP Engine conducts its business under Silver Lake.

Our thoughts

Mullenweg’s bold comments at WordCamp US may have left the audience divided, but they raise important questions for the future of WordPress. How much should companies profiting from the platform be expected to give back? And at what point do their business practices start to undermine the collaborative foundation of WordPress?

While it’s true that Automattic contributes significantly more hours to WordPress than WP Engine, it’s important to recognize that Automattic also benefits immensely from the collective efforts of the hosting companies and the global WordPress community. Automattic’s business is built on a platform that others, including firms like WP Engine, help to sustain and popularize. The shared success of WordPress is a direct result of this wider collaboration, so the lines between contributing and benefiting are more blurred than the critique suggests.

Moreover, Matt’s decision to criticize WP Engine while simultaneously accepting sponsorship money from them raises ethical questions. If Automattic truly disagrees with WP Engine’s business practices, why continue taking their financial support for WordCamp? To then publicly shame the company while benefiting from their contributions places Automattic in a contradictory position.