Wake me when version 3.0 for Windows is released

A year ago I dropped Scrivener for Mac for any practical purposes. My main machines are now Windows 10 Pro, since that combines PC, Tablet, Notebook, touch and pen into one travel machine (and a second higher powered notebook often connected to a UHD sized screen).
I tested the iOS version. Man was I disappointed. The modern iOS interface has not really made it to the iOS version yet (in many ways it reminded me of the “intricacies” of the venerable and long dead Windows 3.1),
So I uninstalled both my mac version and my iOS version (both paid for, but…). This time for good.
Now tell me, what benefit I get by buying the mac version for a computer I hardly use for anything serious these days, in the diminishing hope, that Literature & Latte may - or may not - live long enough to release (or not) the Windows version 3 in 2018 or 2019 or…
Life’s too short for this, and I have long given up on vague promises from software developers.
Wake me when a complete version 3 for Windows is released to the general public.


Here’s what I got from your post:

  • The iOS version was too hard/“intricate” for you to use
  • You’re frustrated that v3 for Windows hasn’t been released yet

Frankly, I was and am fine with Windows v1–the past couple of years using Scrivener have been most productive for me–but have started working now in the Windows V3 beta, and so far I am enjoying the changes.

But on the road I also rely heavily on the iOS version, and if you feel the iOS version is too hard/“intricate”, than perhaps Scrivener isn’t for you.


Nothing to see here. The OP is apparently a troll whose only previous (loong, looong) post is dedicated to explaining why he’s given up on Scrivener and in detail extolling the virtues of some note taking software that he apparently prefer. Horses for courses.

One post in September and another in December is hardly trolling.
Having a similar range of hardware, I understand both the frustration and the choice.
I’ve converted my Scrivener projects to v3 and will stick to that. Of course, I can only afford to do that because I don’t have major projects on Scrivener any more, and am unlikely to do so until there is an Android version. I have the iOS version but don’t like or use it much (more a dislike of iOS than the Scrivener implementation really).
I will remain supportive of L&L.
You may not like the comments, but you have the most active Scrivener development being only on Apple, and insulting other L&L customers whose frustrations don’t affect you is not helpful.

And writing misleading comments like this is not helpful either.

It has been explained many times that just as much effort is going in to Windows as to the Mac (there are the same number of developers – one – one each), but that the Windows version was conceived and developed several years later than the Mac, so there has been a feature lag. Next year there will be a Windows version with feature parity. There is a Beta version available now to test.

There is just as much active development in Windows as for the Mac.

Most Mac users us iOS for mobile.
Most Windows users use Android.
So for most Windows users who need mobile access, development is indeed asymmetric.
But that’s not the point, even if Windows is receiving the same amount of input as the Mac, it is still behind the curve.
And I fully appreciate that small developers like L&L have a difficult job trying to allocate development resources.
But there is no point in gratuitously insulting L&L customers who are frustrated with the state of play. They too contribute to the resources available.

In what way does any customers contribute to available resources in the form of time?

Software development is not some kind of service that society should provide, it’s an economic enterprise, a business. Development of new software, or porting some existing software to another kind of hardware or operating system is also simply business. When KB didn’t find a Mac app that suited his needs as a writer he developed it himself. He didn’t request that someone else should do it. So can anyone else.

Apps are tools. If the tool you want to use can’t be used with your current computer but is available on another system, your choice is to skip the tool or change system, or wait and hope that the desired tool will become available for your computer in the future. But being grumly in general is not a very productive behaviour. Especially as it most likely affect your productivity in a negative way.

You know the available alternatives so all you have to do is to make a decision. Make it, and skip telling the world about it.

I would like to see a cite from a reliable source of data before agreeing to that. That’s going to be heavily region-dependent, and it will likely be dependent on the kinds of users as well (academic vs. fiction, etc.)

You may be surprised to know that the Windows version has two developers, not one like Mac. So Windows is getting more resources precisely because it’s behind the curve, even though I suspect it hasn’t sold as many copies as Scrivener for Mac in aggregate.

Both Scrivener for Mac OS and iOS are written in native Apple languages/frameworks. Even there, the difference in services and functionality between Mac OS and iOS have driven some difference in application features.

This is compounded by the cross-platform issue. Taking an iOS application and porting it directly to Android is…well, from what I understand, very difficult. It’s essentially writing the same program twice in two different languages, two different choices of framework, etc.

The Windows dev, of course, happened first, and in choosing the language and framework, they picked the Qt4 framework, which is promoted as a cross-platform development framework. One of the reasons (I gather) why Qt was picked is because it has many of the OS-level services and functions that native Windows does not, which allowed the Windows version to get to a “greater than 1.x but not quite full 2.x” level of functionality when compared to Mac OS Scrivener. Not all of those features work exactly the same way (look at the differences between how scrivenings mode works in Windows 1.x and Mac, or how Windows 1.x depends on the external Aspell libraries rather than a system-provided dictionary like Mac does). Windows 3.x development is now based on Qt5, which helps modernize the underlying framework.

So what does this all have to do with Android?

A few comments made in the past show that once the Windows v3 offering is stable, it will likely be the base for developing an Android version. By using Qt, the Windows developers have done most of the work of the underlying guts, and now only have to solve the mobile-specific and Android-specific pieces rather than rewrite from scratch in yet another language/framework.

By focusing on Windows 3.x development, L&L is in fact working on the Android mobile version in the most time-efficient manner possible.

Rome was not built in a day.

Gartner statistics show Android with approximately 2/3 of the market even in the US - more in rest of world. Might be down a bit in last quarter with the Apple launches. However you stack it, it means that Windows users are more likely to go with Android. Maybe Mac users do too, but my experience is that they have been weighted to iOS.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and L&L gestations have often been lengthy. I’ve never complained about the lack of an Android version although I have observed occasionally that my current software use is heavily affected by cross platform availability.

It would be nice if Qt was advancing the speed of Android availability, although I’m not totally convinced by Qt (which could, of course, also be used for Mac and iOS). I don’t really mind one way or the other and I’d most prefer that L&L didn’t overstretch themselves. I’m happy to buy and update Scrivener for the versions I have, whether I use them much or not.

… though antagonism like this from the haves does make me feel less positive about Scrivener and L&L generally (even though I’ve noticed staff themselves to be scrupulously polite)

Citing short passages, like I just did, without the surrounding context, can easily be used to change the overall appearance of other peoples posts, without really adding anything to the discussion except making those other people appear unpolite or right out rude.

I was offering this not just to you, but to others who are reading as well who may not know the full backstory.

Using Qt for MacOS would be less than optimal – the Mac version is, of course, the original version and is written in native code. Likewise, using it for iOS would have increased the difficulty (from what I understand) of getting iOS ported. Of course, some of these design decisions were made back years before the iOS effort ran into delays, but that does not make them less correct.