The team deserves a congratulation to produce and ship a decent product on both platforms in a relatively fast pace given their limited resources (they're not Adobe or MS).
However, I'm critical of the site and the HN post.
It seems to me the post links to checkout page to increase conversion. Or at least that was the intent of it. However, this is not a small purchase and I think they lose even more by sending them to what looks a like a blind alley.
Secondly, the page has a coupon code option. Right away I know I don't want to pay the full price.
I think the product can save you enough time to warrant the price asked, but I think I would have bought it if the HN post included a 50% coupon. Especially if it they had a V1 2-day sale option. Not only I would have bought it, but I would have shared on FB and twitter. Given many HN readers are influencers that would have been a good marketing move.
All these aside, I think their videos are horrible. Especially for a $180 product. If the scripts were a bit more polished they could have covered as much in half the time. They also lack the big picture intro followed by diving into details. For example: we are able to create global styles an apply it to different objects. Let me show you how it's done....
To get very picky, the narrator's voice is a bit whiny. I have made videos in the past and we spend 1-2 hours just on polishing the script and I offered a friend with a great voice free lunch to come and narrate the video. So it can be done.
OP here. I am not in any way affiliated with the Macaw team, I'm just a fan that was closely watching. The reason I linked to the checkout page was that Hacker News would not allow me to submit a link to their home page because of a past submission.
I urge everybody who does not see a lot of information about Macaw here to check out http://macaw.co/. Sorry about any confusion and to the Macaw team if this was not the destination that they intended.
A lot of folks are hating on this but realize a few things:
1.) This is the first version. We're creeping into an era where a couple of dudes can compete with MASSIVE corporations. Expect rough edges, but give congratulations where they're due.
2.) This is the future, like it or not.
I'm a developer (primarily front-end) and while I may not immediately integrate this into my workflow, I can see it becoming a staple for many as it evolves. The idea of "drawing" code is very intuitive.
Übergeeks will bitch and moan about how it's not the perfect solution or how they'd rather code it by hand. That's all fine, but don't ignore it because it's not your ideal solution on day one. Give it time.
If you're smart, you'll at least play with this on a side project and learn the basic mechanics. If this works out well and continues to evolve, it could replace a lot of jobs – think about that.
Scanning the responses on HN, I haven't read a lot of hate. Lots of constructive criticism. I'm personally looking forward to it improving and trying it out again soon.
I noticed this as well. Although I have seen the previous demos of Macaw, I'm very surprised there is no link back to their homepage anywhere on this page. This page offers very little information for software that costs $179!
How about some information about what potential customers are buying? Or at the very least, a link to where they can find this information.
Aimed at designers for sure. Just look at the gem of a payoff: "Stop writing code, start drawing it." Thats what we want to hear. Draw it and let the app take care of all the code with browser quirks. (Yes I know you're all dev's here, but this is how designers feel. Older designers still remember they had to write postscript). ;-)
Your opinions are subjective. OSx makes my eyes bleed both in its design and its unrelenting use of ridiculous animations. It feels like it was made for toddlers. It takes BSD and bastardizes it enough to make it so some things require the GUI and some require command line and it's not immediately obvious which is which (at least coming from a Linux background). In Linux you know you're going to spend 95% of your time in the command line, and on Windows 95% in GUI.
A nice thing about Linux is if you don't like the GUI, switch it out for another one. Can your mac do that? No, not without wiping OSx and installing Linux.
The OSx GUI is usable for many people, but it's in no way a holy grail of design or productivity.
For those that pre-ordered, here's a message from the team:
"We are no longer using Paddle, you will receive an email directly from our system with details on how to setup your account. Those emails are going out soon. Thanks!"
I heard about this a couple months ago at a conference on rapid prototyping, and I've been waiting for it to come out in the hopes that we would finally have a rapid prototyping solution for user interface designs. I'm basically looking for a balsamiq with lots of built-in animations and UI interaction patterns.
Unfortunately, it looks like this product is geared more towards being a full-featured WYSIWYG for webpages rather than a prototyping tool for UI.
I need something that will allow me to say "when the user clicks on this, this other element slides down"... Preferably without having to do the HTML and JavaScript myself. I don't need it to be production worthy, as my developers will insist on doing the code themselves anyway.
It looks to me like this is a great tool for either people who don't know HTML/CSS or firms that need to kick out webpages quickly where the designers don't want to hand code the HTML/CSS.
Not saying that isn't a huge market, it's just not targeted toward UI prototyping.
That said, if the goal here is to provide a Dreamweaver 2.0 that spits out much better quality code, then this option looks really solid and slick.
Sounds like you're looking for something completely different than what this tool has been marketed as since the beginning.
As a full-stack developer it interests me because it lets me visually create the visual part of a site. I don't like writing CSS when I have so much other development to do, but at the same time I don't want some shitty, bloated WYSIWYG editor that spits out garbage code. Macaw's authors have emphasized the quality of the generated code since the beginning so even if it's not perfect right away it's certainly comforting to know it's a priority for them.
Fireworks was an excellent prototyping tool,and when I say excellent i mean the best and the easiest to use out there.It was infortunatly "depreacated" by Adobe.
Thanks for the link. It's an interesting idea, and if I spent very much time messing with HTML and jquery, it looks like it could save me a lot of time.
My specific case is that I don't really have any HTML to work with, just wireframes.
Of course, I could use a tool like Macaw to spit the HTML out and then put the shorthand into the code, but ideally I don't have to work with HTML/CSS/JavaScript at all.
I'm actually looking at indigo studio that was recommended below, and it looks like it nails my use case.
Jeremy, you may be looking for something like this - http://www.screenr.com/HTQH . I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic. The Macaw guys are doing great, though!
With the caveat that I just watched the video and didn't do any further digging...
It looks really cool, but it may be for people who need a lot more freedom with their animations. Honestly, my needs could be met with just a handful of interactions (slide up, slide down, modal, tooltip, show, hide) with a handful of events (mouse in, mouse out, click, etc)
Why not just rig up and expose jQuery slide animations as buttons to your designers? Could be as simple as they click on the container they want to animate -> click on an event -> click on an animation.
This site is poorly designed; I didn't understand how the checkout form works. It appears at first that I'd have to enter a coupon code from somewhere to buy it; I thought maybe from the Mac App Store or something, but that wouldn't make sense. It was only after thinking for a while that I figured the coupon code wasn't necessary to click the Checkout button.
I have been following this for a while. Seemed like longer than 8 months. I am curious to see the feedback once it has been thoroughly field tested. I have no problem paying the full price if it pans out.
It looks like an internet connection is required for the demo. When I try to open it without a connection, I'm told my trial has expired, even though I've never used the software.
Is an internet connection required only for trial period verification or is this, always online, internet connection required, software?
I preordered Macaw and intend on trying it out... I also own and use Adobe Edge Animate and Sublime Text, etc...
Can someone offer a distinction between tooling such as Text Editors, such as Macaw, such as Dreamweaver, such as Edge Animate that actually makes sense per people's arguments and each company's prospective use cases?
Many people are arguing that Macaw would be great for prototyping but that the code generated is not production ready, but I would argue that Adobe Edge Animate by that logic would offer an even better prototyping environment, but have not heard people go gaga over it for such purpose like they have Macaw.
If people do argue that code generated by Macaw is production ready (in some form), then why would Adobe Edge Animate not also be production ready... for same purpose?
A lot to like after using the trial for a few hours. Its expensive so I'm not ready to buy just yet but could see jumping in after the next rev if they make improvements.
2 crucial features I can't really use this seriously without: layouts and components. Components need to be updating, not just a way to copy and create duplicate elements everywhere.
Also for me, this would only ever be for throwaway prototypes since I see it as improbable you'll support ember anytime soon.
Great start though, unfortunately with an idea this ambitious you need quite a lot to get web devs to jump on board.
And someone who has spent their life in Photoshop will probably say that a HTML file + Browser dev tools is more confusing than using Macaw ...
I backed this project, and haven't really used it yet. I am also not a designer.
That's where I think the sweet spot is. Like many others I am a developer and being handed a .psd / .ai / whatever is just awful. At least this tool gives great markup for us to build on. Heck, I'm pretty sure the project files can be checked right into version control.
Does anyone know if it differs from Adobe Edge Reflow in any meaningful way? It superficially seems like it takes a similar approach. Given that it comes with a hefty price tag, i'd need some serious persuasion.
Naturally I'll play with it a bit more for myself before drawing any concrete conclusions.
The lowest kickstarter backer level for Macaw with software access were $99 which I backed. I've only had limited time for playing around, but Macaw is very promising - IF you do produce code yourself.
If you mostly just hack templates it's a bit expensive notepad substitute.
I'm sure it's worth it, but $180 seems a bit steep for something so new and unknown.
Wish there was a more entry price at around $20 - $30 that maybe limited a few features.
I know there's the trial, but I'd actually like to just pay $20 to have unlimited number of days to 'think' about upgrading to the $180 rather than have the clock ticking, as sometimes you don't get to evaluate the way you'd like / plan over those 2 weeks.
If this works, that price is a pittance to anyone who'd use it professionally. People ask for $100-200 things here (scopes, cheap logic analyzers, jtag stuff) just to play with them, and we don't blink, because what's the point of wasting time second guessing people?
A $180 price point makes me much more hopeful about this particular piece of software. That sounds like a very reasonable and (importantly) sustainable price.
Yes, I'm not disputing the $180 as the full price, especially for professionals.
I'm just saying personally I'd prefer a cheaper price point option for better evaluation.
Certainly would hand over the $180 after evaluation.
As it stands, I don't feel I can eval properly in a 14 day trial, and I don't want to drop $180 without consideration.
Seems I'm being down voted, not sure why as it's just feedback as to my reaction on pricing which I figured the devs could find useful regardless of if there are other people who would pay $180 immediately.
I didn't downvote you. For what it's worth as a marketing parable: you want something very particular --- early access to a new tool. People like you generally pay more for tools, not less.
The obvious response to your concern about whether the tool will work out is to wait and see how other people like it. :)
Is Macaw targeted to designers who don't know how to code?
I recall reading one of the branches from that "responsive sites are all lookalike" thread from last week which stated that one of the problems is that the design was thought out by developers. Agree or disagree, the other way around that would be the target audience for Macaw?
How does it stands against RapidWeaver for the casual user? The price tag is challenging.
I'm actually disappointed it isn't subscription based. $179 is a pretty big sum, and there's no way I can thoroughly test out the app in 2 weeks (I'm a programmer, not a designer).
I would have happily bitten the bullet on a monthly fee.
> there's no way I can thoroughly test out the app in 2 weeks
With the purpose of trials being to let people test the app, surely a longer trial (e.g. 90 days) would give people more time to get hooked and realise they couldn't live without it?
With the ease of getting pirated software the argument that people would use these long trials time after time in VMs doesn't stand up I believe, and shouldn't stop them being used.
Personally I preferred the trials that allowed "30 launches" of the program - so if I only found 5 days over 6 months to evaluate the software I was able to - and still had another 25 trial-days left to test it.
Yeah, but after reading their use and then privacy policy it sure looks like you have to be able to connect to their servers to start using it. I assume that if they go poof, so does your copies of application, short of cracking it. One would hope they have a provision for off-line use/starting it.
They can't enforce their "any machine, one login in per copy" policy unless you log in each time you start it. Although one wonders how they deal with logging out, especially if that machine is offline, or just plain dead, when you "logout". Would imply a timeout or periodic phone home.
Can anyone who has used this explain to me if it is worth $180? I own both textmate($50 iirc) and sublime(around $70 iirc) so spending that much seems a bit much. I know it has some nice visual features, but is it $120 worth?
I mean that's what it is. And you can think of it as Dreamweaver but unlike Dreamweaver, Macaw is supposed to generate code that is similar to handwritten code. So if they can deliver on that objective, it will be very useful.
Its been pirated since at least v0.75
(I know bcd its my business to know)
I pre-ordered btw. I have no pretence to design/UX chops beyond appreciation - but for the times i want to throw a nice front end up to work towards, this is useful
(esp. device preview)
But for the right program, I'd get a Windows VM running, or perhaps run it on a random machine. I swore off Macs in 1987, and the more I see of Apple, the more determined I am to never again use any of their products.
(For that matter, OS X is Apple's red headed stepchild, and everyone I know with a Mac is moving off the OS X ecosystem.)
However, I'm critical of the site and the HN post.
It seems to me the post links to checkout page to increase conversion. Or at least that was the intent of it. However, this is not a small purchase and I think they lose even more by sending them to what looks a like a blind alley.
Secondly, the page has a coupon code option. Right away I know I don't want to pay the full price.
I think the product can save you enough time to warrant the price asked, but I think I would have bought it if the HN post included a 50% coupon. Especially if it they had a V1 2-day sale option. Not only I would have bought it, but I would have shared on FB and twitter. Given many HN readers are influencers that would have been a good marketing move.
All these aside, I think their videos are horrible. Especially for a $180 product. If the scripts were a bit more polished they could have covered as much in half the time. They also lack the big picture intro followed by diving into details. For example: we are able to create global styles an apply it to different objects. Let me show you how it's done....
To get very picky, the narrator's voice is a bit whiny. I have made videos in the past and we spend 1-2 hours just on polishing the script and I offered a friend with a great voice free lunch to come and narrate the video. So it can be done.
Still, kudos to the team!