Macaw V1 Released
secure.macaw.co
secure.macaw.co
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!
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.
If a Hacker News admin would like to change this link destination, they are more than welcome to.
However, once I read about it, it sounded pretty nice. My first thought is that it tries to encourage the same workflow as Microsoft's Blend?
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.
How about some information about what potential customers are buying? Or at the very least, a link to where they can find this information.
Isn't it built on node-webkit? How hard could it be to port, really?
Since then we have un*x that simply works: Mac.
So… NOTHING IS FOR FREE! And with Apple you can at least get a decent GUI that doesn't make your eyes bleed.
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.
"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.
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)
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.
May solve your problems.
We evaluated it and liked it for pure interaction design.
Would appreciate your thoughts on the syntax, etc. I describe it as "Like markdown for jQuery"
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.
Is an internet connection required only for trial period verification or is this, always online, internet connection required, software?
I haven't purchased it, but that sure seems like an internet connection is required unfortunately.
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?
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.
First thought is that its more confusing than just making a HTML file and playing with that in Chrome+dev tools.
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.
Naturally I'll play with it a bit more for myself before drawing any concrete conclusions.
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.
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.
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.
The obvious response to your concern about whether the tool will work out is to wait and see how other people like it. :)
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.
"Price is a flat fee and not a subscription. Price includes all updates to version 1 of Macaw."
I would have happily bitten the bullet on a monthly fee.
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.
Will be very interesting to see how this get adapted by the design community.
... when trying to activate my email address. Great!
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)
Good job Macaw
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.)