I realize there was some editing of the Beta and "Release" section, so I may be missing the mark, but I need to say that software releases are defined. (Bold is mine)
"Beta, named after the second letter of the Greek alphabet, is the software development phase following alpha. Software in the beta stage is also known as betaware. Beta phase generally begins when the software is feature complete but likely to contain a number of known or unknown bugs."
"The alpha phase of the release life cycle is the first phase to begin software testing (alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, used as the number 1). In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release. Alpha software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss.... Alpha software may not contain all of the features that are planned for the final version."
Evernote would probably be better positioned to call this web release Alpha; as, per their announcement it is not feature-complete, but I totally understand them using Beta since more people probably recognize it as "it's not finished, but here, try it out.". There's nothing wrong with that.
However, "Beta" is not a synonym for "1.0" or "Release". Even if you skip "Release Candidate" (many products do go from Beta to Release), eventually there still should be a "Release" (effectively 1.0). And this "Release", or at least the state of feature-complete, should be clearly communicated. With the "Beta" they've clearly said not all features are supported so that's a great start, but where do they even plan to go? What features are they planning on adding? Do they internally have a definition of "feature-complete" for a web version? Is there any way for me (customer) to know if they ever intend to support feature(s) that I rely on?
It is my impression (and to be honest I haven't read every bulletin ever) that Evernote has not made these distinctions clear in the past, and they aren't doing so right now either. The "middle" UI view being a prime example. It went from "Beta" to just no longer having any "Beta" labeling, yet still having a different feature-set, etc, from previous. And now there is a new "Beta"; which is likely their improved codebase, so good, but we're just flying past the last "Beta" existing and it never had any wrap-up. Now we're on a new Beta and have no visibility of where it's going.
As @Gear64 said, there being no version numbers and not enough information around "Beta" or Releases just adds to the confusion. And this confusion adds to customer frustration. I would like to use the web client, but I would like to avoid it until it is deemed feature-complete, or at least has the features that I rely on daily. But, I have no way of knowing anything about where/what/when this Beta is headed. Do they plan to take this Beta to feature-complete? What is "feature-complete" for their web development? Will they announce it when/if they think they arrive there? If I miss an announcement would there be any way, in the UI, for me to discern if I am using Beta or Released?
I do understand the challenges of resource contention when supporting old codebases and production systems while trying to rewrite with current tools and frameworks. I painfully understand it as it's my job (Software Engineer & Team Lead supporting numerous products including legacy applications and web services). However, the way to get through that hurdle is through very clear versioning and communication; giving customers FULL (two-way) choice of which version to use (at least until feature-complete), and communicating enough information around these versions for customers to decide when to try the next version. To be clear, I am not saying they should support the older versions forever; that's not possible or advised. But they should support a version until its replacement has at least feature parity or has been clearly communicated what features are not intended to be supported. As the customer I can decide if that feature and their intent to discontinue it is a deal breaker for me. Otherwise my experience is just frustrating retries.
As the customer, I want to choose the Classic UI or maybe the middle UI or the Beta UI, with the ability to switch back and forth easily. I want clear information about each version to be able to make an informed decision. Ideally what features are intended in future releases from this Beta. I wouldn't be frustrated if I could clearly pick which UI, could clearly identify which UI and version it was, and could clearly lookup what features it currently supported and/or intended to support. And, if that page were kept up to date; i.e. as features are added to Beta they move from planned to delivered, then I could easily pick when to try the Beta. I could easily help find bugs (and be less irritated that Evernote uses customers for QA) and report them and I could easily pop back to a version that works for me if I wanted to or if the feature I tried in Beta was broken.
This iterative approach to development that they take works well when communication is on point. But without version numbers and with spotty communication and with no insight into versions/features/roadmap it's just frustrating for customers.