Long time user of Scrivner. I use Mac and Windows. I have 3.0 on my Mac and will look forward to 3.0 on Windows. We have dealt with different versions on Windows & Mac for years. I would hope that one day there could be a web based version that I could access files on any computer that had Internet access. A reasonable monthly subscription could be charged that cover application maintenance and file storage. This type of Internet app would eliminate (for me) all future Mac and Windows versions and cover file sharing between Mac and Windows.
Thanks for listening. Thanks for your continued efforts to bring us a high quality writing tool.
Pastor Mick
How do you imagine a web based version would handle the multi-file format of Scrivener projects? Do you know if there is any web based app that handles multi-file packages stored on a computers hard drive?
A web version has been discussed a number of times and Keithâs response has always been, ânot plannedâ. It takes significant resources to provide web based software.
The VERY LIBERAL L&L licence allows you to install on all your home systems, and Scricvenr works great with Dropbox, so I find that wherever I am, I have one of my MB/MBP or iPad Pro able to access the Dropbox files from anywhere.
Thatâs about as close as you will get for the forseeable futuire.
The big benefit to a web-based version would be sneaky people (like me) who want to use a work computer that they canât install a big program on. Oh well.
Yup. If you have any type of Apple iDevice, it is well worth it to purchase and use iOS Scriv. I was shocked how productive I can be on my iPhone 7âs little screenâthat is, when Iâm not posting here.
OneNote is multifile. Many Microsoft files formats are .ZIP files like PowerBI with a different extension.
There is no technical reasons this could not happen. Its up to them.
I know of at least one Screenwriting software app that is web-based.
Values to web-based are:
Makes collaboration features easier, allows users of systems like Chrome to choose the solution etc.
Itâs a business decision, a big one. not a technical limitation.
Google Docs, which is about the same age as Scrivener, still has nothing resembling Scrivenerâs multi-document format. Individual Google Docs items are completely independent of each other.
Since they have vastly greater resources than Literature & Latte does, and already have a web-based editor, why donât you ask them to add such a clearly trivial feature?
Sorry to be snarky, but anyone who thinks a web-based version of Scrivener wouldnât be a significant technical challenge is welcome to try to write one.
Iâm with you most of the way on this one. I believe this is a business decision, because technically, given the right time, resources, and motivation, anything is possible.
That said, it seems to me the business decision has already been made, with Keith concluding that a web-based Scrivener is not part of his vision.
Yes, given sufficient time, resource and $$$$$ MOST things are possible, however L&L are a small company with 1 (Keith) iOS and Mac developer and a couple/few totally tied up on the Win version so their ability to throw obscene piles of money and resources at an effort to achieve an online version (which may or may not be possible due to the technical challenges) are practically zero.
Two of the L&L staff have posted it would be a very difficult task and pointed to a number of previous explanations as to why itâs unlikely to ever happen.
So, itâs far more than just a business decision, but even if it were itâs Keithâs company and Scrivener is his baby, so his decision to make. To steal a bit from his signature, if you donât like it, go use someone elseâs toasterâŠ
As mentioned above, anyone who thinks itâs just a matter of throwing money and resources at it, feel free to invest many $$$ and man-years in trying to prove that.
Meanwhile Iâll just use the great versions of Scrivener available and get on with writing.
I fear my post may have been misunderstood. Iâll elaborate and hopefully clarify, at the risk of further muddying the waters.
Scrivenerâs very existence proves that KB is a resourceful fellow who rises to a challenge. With no prior coding experience, he created Mac Scrivener, and then, when iOS development fell apart, he rolled his sleeves up and built that too, teaching himself another platform in the process. Perhaps you believe a web version exceeds his technical skillsâhell, he may believe that tooâbut I donât. His prior successes leave me convinced he can do anything, if heâs motivated to do so.
Which leads me to the main point I was trying to make, apparently poorly: Keith seems uninterested in developing a web version. Technical and other challenges aside, IMHO that is really the important thing, and the only important thing.
Perhaps it doesnât fit into his vision of what Scrivener is and should be. Perhaps he doesnât believe there is a pricing model that would make it worthwhile. Perhaps he feels that taking on yet another platform will grow L&L larger than he wants it to be. In a 2010 post in one of the URLs linked above, he stated that heâs still not a fan of cloud-based softwareâperhaps heâs still not a fan of the platform, at least for Scrivener. Or, perhaps he feels it is too big a technical challenge for him.
I donât know and I really donât care, which is why I havenât bothered to read through all of the posts linked above. If a Scriv web version is ever released, I would buy it and Iâm sure Iâd use it, but itâs not anything I feel I need. Between iOS & Win 1.9, Iâm happy and productive.
But thatâs enough of me talking about something I really havenât a clue about.
I agree, though I have no idea how to write script (and I wouldnât presume to), I think a web-based version - even with very limited functionality compared to the software - would immensely benefit people who use shared computers. As a student, I am unable to access my thesis (which I am writing with Scrivener) on university computers because the administration locks the ability to install software onto them. I know itâs a minor hassle since if I know I want to be writing Iâll bring my laptop with me, but I would prefer not to have to carry it on me all day if I know Iâll be using campus computers. And, because my research database is also contained on my laptop, it would be helpful to be able to open Scrivener on another computer so that I am not constantly flicking between screens,
Someone please tell me how to turn off the manager in me and turn on the writerâŠHere is the manager speaking;
First and foremost, I would like to express my appreciation for this excellent and well-crafted product. You all do good work, and it certainly wasnât by *chance that I opted for Scrivener after much trial and research.
That being said: what youâre doing is questionable entrepeneurship. Given all the threads and posts on this topic, there is clearly a market for this feature. Passing off the difficulties in the endeavour (of which there are surely plenty) by telling your users that they themselves should make a technical design for you is nonsense and in poor taste. They are aspiring writers, not IT engineers.
If you canât give your customers what they want, then try to present them with an interesting alternative. Donât try to make it their fault. Thatâs not how you run a business.
Regarding the idea of a web version: it would add the last bit of flexibility to make your product truly universal.
I find my writing motivation popping up at the most erratic of times and I would like to make use of it when it arises.
There is a good chance that I am going to part ways with my beloved Scrivener and opt for an online version. Not because thereâs anything seriously wrong with Scrivener (there isnât), but simply because the online version is what I personally need right now.
I hope you take this post as a well-meant suggestion. I think L&L and Scrivener are excellent and I hope that both still go a very long way.
There is no universal law saying that every business has to meet all customers demands.
If there is a market, there is also an opportunity for someone to rise to the challenge. Why donât you yourself do it?
There is an old saying I really like:
âDonât demand of others what you are not willing to do yourselfâ
L&L has given an explanation for why there wonât be a web based version of Scrivener. The âinteresting alternativeâ is Scrivener for Mac, Windows and iOS. Repeating that message isnât a way of trying âto make it their [the customers] faultâ
Speaking of nonsense, it is quite common for people seeking a web version to imply that such an endeavor would be trivially easy, and that L&Lâs failure to create one is therefore a sign of both technical incompetence and blatant disregard for users. Those people are the ones being addressed by my comment.
As you would know if you had actually read the previous threads on this topic, it is not at all clear that the market for an online version of Scrivener is large enough to support the not-insignificant costs of such a project, particularly since its main potential competitor, Google Docs, is both free and supported by a company with effectively unlimited resources.
How do you conclude it would be universal? People have also asked for: 1) an Android version, 2) a revived Linux version, and 3) a Portable Apps version (at least).
On this and the other threads pointed to by L&L staff this subject had been covered so many times. The L&L response, they donât see the demand, they donât have the resources staff and financial, they donât intend to do it.
Endlessly arguing the toss is not going to change all that.
As for the comment âgiven all the threads there is clearly a marketâ ⊠what âŠ8 or 10 people demanded it in multiple posts doesnât establish a viable demand.
No-one asked anyone to do it for L&L, just said if you are so convinced of the demand and want it feel free to invest your own time and $$ and do it. Hey you might be the one to put L&L out of business as one or two posters in the threads seem convinced is the outcome if they donât give in to the demand.
One final point, suggesting âquestionable entrepreneurshipâ is more likely to get a âSod offâ response than a âyou are so rightâ.
