IOS 13

With iOS 13 coming out, there is a push to make iOS and Mac apps the same. Would really like Mac and iOS versions to be identical so all the features that we get on the Mac version would show up in iOS. Is L&L working on that?

Some discussion here:

The short answer is that iOS is still lacking significant capabilities that would be needed by Mac OS Scrivener.


No, there is a push to make it possible to run iOS apps on a Mac, not the other way around.

Among the great innovations added to “iPadOS” is the ability to open two emails at once.

It has a very long way to go. :mrgreen:

Hi, Ioa.

Apple says that bringing an iOS app to the Mac will be as simple as ticking a box:

Putting aside different OS abilities entirely, if L&L have an iPad app, is there any chance of that box being ticked and compiling Scrivener for iPad so that it is available to Mac users who want to run the iPad version of Scrivener on their Macs?

And if more people want to use iPad Scrivener on their Macs than use S3, what then: still two versions of the app or a focus on one universal app?

iPad Scrivener on a Mac might not have the power of S3, but it might well suit a significant number of users, especially those who just want one interface to learn and use on multiple devices.

Slàinte mhòr.

Hopefully keep Scrivener 3 for the Mac and leave the cut down version for the cut down OS.


You can imagine what kind of chaos this would create with two Mac versions and people asking why something they’ve seen in a video can’t be done on their version and then getting angry for having bought the Mac Scrivener Light version instead of the full version.

Why would L&L want to port their iOS version to Mac OS when there is already a full fledged Mac version?

I highly doubt it would be as simple as a checkbox. There are a lot of things that would have to be changed for that to make any sense. Apple’s little demo was a pretty simplistic utility. But even if it were easy, I don’t know how it benefits anyone to have three different versions of Scrivener to develop, test and support.

As to the rest, thankfully there are no indications of Apple encouraging what you’re describing. Instead they pumped an awful lot of resources into making sure the Mac stays top of the class in terms of workstation level power. To my mind that’s a strong signal to developers of powerful software to keep doing what they are doing, and then some—not strip everything to the bone and make everything all the same, regardless of the context.

I read requests like the OP made to bring Mac features to iOS, like nested bullets for example, not to remove nested bullets from the Mac! :smiley:

Thanks to all for replying.

To Ioa:

But if it was that simple…

iOS does nested lists. At least Notes does.

I agree that Apple is signalling its support for workstation apps: perfect for developers, photographers, film-makers, etc. I, personally, think that most writers don’t need workstation-level tools.

And, of course, I think the end logic is that there wouldn’t be three different versions of Scrivener to support.

To lunk:

Porting to Mac if the iPad version is more popular with users and to give the developer less work to do. In time, iPad Scrivener could replace Mac Scrivener, so the issue with Mac Scrivener Light wouldn’t arise. In fact, you would be making things easier for the developer, users, and the support channels. To me, all this seems obvious, but I completely accept that other people see things differently. It’s just a conversation.

Personally, I like iPad Scrivener (it is a beautiful work of sleek and unobtrusive design) but dislike the ergonomics of using a touchscreen device. I like Scrivener 3, but I’d be more than happy to have iPad Scrivener on a Mac. I think a lot of other users would also feel the same, especially as iPad OS promises to deliver a better app experience than the current version of iOS.

Obviously, L&L knows how its sales fall and how many people use each version of Scrivener and how many of the features they use, In my experience, most people use a small portion of Scrivener’s features and would probably be happy with what iPad Scrivener offers (without having to use or have an iPad). We know people write with Word, Pages, Bear, Ulysses, iA Writer, etc. They don’t need to use workstation-level tools. So if Scrivener can deliver a “light” product that suits more people than its “heavy” product, why miss out on all those possible sales when, if what Apple says is correct, all Keith would need to do would be to select a checkbox and then watch the sales mount up?

We have seen Apple gut and then rebuild Photos, Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. We’ve seen them bring Stocks and Voice Memos to the Mac. We know it can be done. For me, it seems like a big opportunity for L&L, but I am totally happy for Keith to keep things as they are. Just talking and thinking.

Slàinte mhòr.

I think you are missing a crucial factor – perhaps the most important one: Keith’s vision of Scrivener. I don’t think it’s ever been too much about sales. Not to the exclusion of the vision, anyway. And long may it continue that way. Chasing sales is a fast way to produce a dog’s breakfast, in my view.

As I believe I mentioned once already, the overwhelming majority of cross-platform requests involve people wishing that the iOS version had more features, not that the Mac version had fewer. Your hypothetical user who would be happy with Scrivener Light on the Mac does not appear to exist.


Word and Pages are hardly minimalist applications!

The example of Word is instructive, though. They say most people use only 10% of Word’s features. But Word is so bloated because it’s a different 10% for everyone.

Likewise with Scrivener. I never use the screenwriting features. Screenwriters rarely if ever use footnotes. But eliminating either screenwriting or footnoting would cut out vast swaths of users.


I would like to see Scrivener for iOS get some more features.

But I would also be very happy to use the iOS version of Scrivener on the Mac. I much prefer it overall, and always write on it over the full version.

The ability to do this is not something I’ve ever thought about – and I don’t personally see it as a big deal. But if I had the option, I would certainly use it.