Like a few others I feel compelled to comment on what appears to be a premature step to version 1.0. The vision for the application seems like a good one, and in particular the purported ability, in due course, to be able to convert between templates, if, for example a ms in revised for an alternative journal.
However, as well as various instabiilities, it is still clearly not ready for actual real world use for probably the majority of users. As noted by others, it is not yet possible to include author affiliations in exported files, or include supplementary material. These are not the sort of things that should be on some wish list for someone hoping to use this software, these are things that any practical use will demand of the software right from the beginning.
It seems to me an abuse of peoples good will expecting them to address many of the sorts of bugs and limitations that are still clearly present in the release version. The saddest part of that it a similarly mentally was clearly in place in releasing v3 of the papers app, for which the developers were widely criticised. I look forward to watching this software evolve and would be interested to hear how users are expected to use the software in the short-term given some of the limitations mentioned above and elsewhere in these forums.