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.
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!"
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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). ;-)
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.
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. :)
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.)
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
85 comments
[ 28.5 ms ] story [ 1402 ms ] thread"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!"
http://forum.macaw.co/discussion/318/macaw-v1-0-is-here
http://macaw.co/
How about some information about what potential customers are buying? Or at the very least, a link to where they can find this information.
http://macaw.co/videos/
... when trying to activate my email address. Great!
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.
"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.
https://medium.com/p/aeb72baf1755
Will be very interesting to see how this get adapted by the design community.
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.
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. :)
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.