@logandonaldson I really believe the release should be pulled and an brief apology issued. Nobody will fault the developers for that and it relives the immediacy of making changes.
Thanks for your feedback. This is actually an important topic to cover to set expectations: we work incrementally and the first increment after 1.0.0 is 1.0.1, available currently as a beta version (Preferences > Updates > …). It does not fix everything but it fixes several things noted on this thread alone. Overall, we feel there is really no need for panic either for us or the user community: we listen, develop the product and accept feedback constructively and openly, for instance on this thread. We also measure the happiness of our users in several ways and believe me, we change our approach if we observe patterns which suggests we are not on the right track. We have concluded the first big piece of work on a product we are very proud of, we have done this before, and we know the real work only begins from the kind of super enthusiastic and actually largely extremely positive response we have had. This is not to discount the bugs discussed also on this thread -- there are flaws, and we do our best to fix them in as fast way as is safe.
Tables and figures are great additions but not essential since they often have to be submitted separately.
I chuckle at the thought of introducing a writing tool with no figure and table editing as the lack of being able to create LaTeX font quality mathematical symbols in headings and subheadings was raised above as a mortal sin. I think you have raised a great example though, because being able to export figures and tables separately out of a manuscript projects is one of the features we intend to deliver in the very near future, because it is one of those many tasks that takes the focus away from the substance and story-telling and makes a scientist a bean counter when exporting work for publication.
Again, as far as we are concerned, the focus of a researcher writing up his researcher is intended to be primarily on the substance, and on telling a story. We format a document so that you do not have to format it. We do our best, but we do not format all details of it at the 1.0 version, because if we did that, the product would be developed in a void for a loooong time, and developing in a void results in unusable, confusing, messy products.
There is a whole host of field specific priorities which we know from our beta audience to be helpful or even essential still for certain tasks and which we do not deliver yet, as has been discussed also in this thread. What we have just released is a 1.0 version which allows you to try out the app completely for free and allows you to send feedback to developers who want to hear it and act on it. The first public version of a tool of this scale is not a statement that is intended to say that "this tool you get at $19.99 is all that is necessary for all writing related micro tasks, please do not use any other tools ever again". It does set out our vision on aesthetics and writing workflow that we believe is good for research writing. How we deliver on that vision we expect to be continuous process.
A quick heads-up regarding the issues you noted (thank you!):
In the New manuscript dialog box, I searched the word Policy. The search went well, but whenever I invoke the dialog again, the searched word is there, and there's no way to clear the search box. The x sign and typing in the box don't work.
This is fixed in 1.0.1, currently available as a beta version (Preferences > Updates > Inform me… > Beta Updates).
(It's best to post bugs as separate feedback entries, it gets hard for people to follow conversations that branch off in many directions -- the word counts feature is improved in the 1.0.2 update, there is also some interesting arithmetic in certain conditions still in the 1.0.0 version that is already fixed)
CEO & Co-founder of Manuscripts.app Ltd