It's the first WYSIWYG that seems to overcome some long-standing issues in input vs. output.

This still doesn't address the complexity with which many sites are built these days that often involves several different pieces. As Colm T. put it:

"If we're working on a complex app that utilizes responsive design, responsive images, conditional loading, lazy loading, HAML, SASS and Rails, handing me a bunch of CSS styles outputted by a WYSIWYG editor is as good as useless."

Interesting product, bad marketing.

"Stop writing code. Start drawing it."

"We wanted Macaw to write code you'd be proud enough to hand to developers."

That's great, but I'm still a proponent that you shouldn't be designing websites if you can't code them. There's a level of understanding that you gain by being able to code. Knowing the boundaries and stretch-points can lead to very interesting and better design solutions. It's like a painter, who can't use paint…

Did anyone else notice this bit at the bottom?

"Macaw's powerful, patent-pending engine is called Alchemy and it can do some incredible things"

WYSIWYGs take a step forward, and for all those out there hoping it will push out even better solutions in the competition, take heed there may be a patent in your way.

All in all, the product is marketed as most useful to a web designer who doesn't want to learn the other half of his/her job.

It would be better marketed as a product that enables rapid prototyping and testing of design solutions for seasoned developers/designers, with the added bonus that it can output basic code that could or could not be useful to you.

Marketing aside, as a prototyping tool I'm liking what I see. I could easily see this being added to my workflow to test out an idea or implementation. Beyond that, I remain skeptical until I've gotten to actually put it to use a few times.

This could be a good ramp for beginners in web design/development, allowing you to see the underlying code that is involved in what you design. I'd rather see it be a learning tool that bridges design and development, not another tool that believes it can eliminate coding and completely replace it with drawing.

Looks very promising. Submitted.

I have to ask though, if there's no percentage. What's the monetization strategy?

• It certainly does not feel "new" in some ways. Apple has certainly followed what many people call "flat design" (which is such a dead horse at this point because flat design is an incorrect label, either way I see nothing there I haven't seen already in use these days in terms of flat, simplistic, minimalistic, clear, etc. design).

• The layering of the interface elements certainly adds an interesting aesthetic, but something I would need to use to love or hate.

• More circle cropped avatars.

• The icons I'm rather indifferent on, as the gradients on some are just "off".

• Apple is following on this design, not leading -- and that worries me. (My paranoid self fears that the good aspects of simplistic clear design will become Apple IP, just all those gestures they didn't invent did. That could push GOOD design that uses clarity into tight positions down the road).

• It feels "new" in that it is different from iOS 6, but it is not "new" in the way that something is neatly wrapped up and packaged. It feels more like an iterative stage towards what could be a very interesting design direction. Perhaps iOS 8 will clean out the cobwebs and really shape this new foundation into something worthwhile.

• Brett J., is super right in that we are going to have a schizophrenic UI for a while until all the apps change their tune. I wonder if Apple's App Store guidelines will crack down on non iOS 7 friendly designs?

• Control Center seems.... cramped? unfinished?

Did I miss anything?