This plant (photographed at the ex-job) doesn't so much appeal to me or not appeal to me as it leaves me kind of scratching my head, wondering why it was necessary. There would be a certain novelty in having a Dracaena deremensis that looked like D. fragrans 'Massangeana,' except that according to the most recent taxonomic rearrangement, D. deremensis is D. fragrans, and although I like pretty much every D. deremensis variety I've ever encountered, it's hard to get terribly excited over strappy green leaves with a central yellow stripe, given that we already had one of those and it still works just fine.
On closer examination, there are some subtle differences. D. fragrans 'Massangeana' usually has leaves which are longer and broader, with slightly wavy margins, so an argument could be made that 'Hawaiian Sunshine' is a little tidier-looking than 'Massangeana.' 'Hawaiian Sunshine' is also a bit glossier, and according to the on-line hype, it's also better at maintaining its variegation in low light (both of which are typical of plants called D. deremensis).
I personally remain unconvinced that 'Hawaiian Sunshine' is that big of an improvement on 'Massangeana' (though I would accept free sample plants to evaluate, hint hint), but what do you think? Is the form different enough to matter? How important are glossier leaves to you? Is it a turn-off that it's patented? Do we like this? Do we care?