When will Scrivener support iCloud (or the way around)?

Scrivener Scrivener for iOS
21

Let me say, if this ever happens, I jump ship to Windows, perhaps to the Windows version running on Linux under Wine. I took part in the beta testing of the iOS app and bought it when it went commercial. I think I have opened it 3 times since then. For me, it’s a great iOS app and Keith is to be congratulated on it … but it’s not for me, and as my main use is collaborating on Chinese–English and English–Chinese translation with my colleagues in China, using the iOS version is out.

I only use a small percentage of the bells and whistles in Scrivener for Mac, but that’s what meets my needs…

Mark

22

Just to be clear, Dropbox is the only supported tool for syncing with iOS devices. iCloud and other services are fine for syncing between Mac OS devices, provided that the precautions described in this article are taken:
scrivener.tenderapp.com/help/kb … c-services

(Why the disparity? Because Macs have both real multitasking and real disk management tools, while iOS has neither.) (Which is one of many reasons to be skeptical about suggestions that iOS will ultimately replace Mac OS.)

Katherine

23

For what it’s worth, I see a good number of support queries from people who thought they didn’t need the Mac Scrivener 3 features … but then find themselves running into the limitations of iOS Scrivener.

It’s also worth remembering that there’s a lot more to writing, and particularly self-publishing, than simply putting words in a coherent order. On the front end, there’s research, and on the back end there are many design and layout tasks. It will be a long time before all of these – including the data flow between them – can be handled by iOS apps as easily as with Mac OS.

Katherine

24

Thanks, Katherine.

Yes, I think the current limitations of iOS impede Scrivener for iOS. It doesn’t suit my personal needs, but I know people who have switched to writing on their iPads and who are happy.

One of the biggest issues for me when using an iPad is the ergonomics of a touchscreen. If iPadOS and iPadOS Scrivener ported to a Mac can overcome that ergonomic issue, I would certainly be open to trying and testing such a souped-up version of Scrivener.

For me, the question isn’t whether I or anyone else wants a dedicated macOS version of Scrivener as we have now; it is whether the market for such an app could survive in an Apple world of universal apps, compiled from the same source code. Yes, some or many people might want macOS Scrivener, but if that number proves in time not to be large enough to sustain a separate development stream, then I assume it would make financial and technical sense for Keith to streamline his work and the company’s offerings. There are already more iOS devices than macOS devices, and the indications are that the disparity between the OSes will only get bigger in time. As developers already have to design and develop for iOS / iPadOS, isn’t it logical to use that same code to run an app on a laptop rather than run expensive and time-consuming development for a market that appears to be shrinking? And especially for a single developer?

I am not saying that I want any of the above to happen. I am saying what I think will happen for most consumer-focused apps and their developers, and that the writers I know who use Scrivener or who have switched to Ulysses are, in the main, consumers…even most of the people on the forum. And that for the majority of them a souped-up version of iPadOS running iPadOS Scrivener is likely to suit most needs on an iPad or a laptop. Not all. But a majority.

Perhaps I am expecting iPadOS and iPadOS Scrivener to deliver too much, but iPadOS does seem to offer a new and powerful dawn, and a clear statement of intent from Apple.

Would love to know what Keith is thinking or to have a glimpse into the future.

Slàinte mhòr.

25

Reading more about this, a thought occurred. In many ways, Scrivener and Project Catalyst share a common logic and a common aim: to let writers write once and then publish in different formats, with only minimal amounts of refinement needed for each output.

Perhaps it is fanciful, but I imagine that Keith might be chuffed to see Apple adopt a concept that Scrivener championed years ago; and if that fancy holds any water, it isn’t too hard to extrapolate to Keith sustaining that initial principle in the future development of Scrivener, is it?

Why write twice if once (big if) is more than sufficient for most users? Why go against Scrivener’s own design concept? Why make life more difficult for users when they could have a common interface across devices? Why not simplify life for the developer and tech-support team? Why not go for the growing market rather than the declining one? Not better to lose some features and some users while building new features and gaining more users in a landscape dominated by iOS and iPadOS? Or is there anything to suggest that macOS devices will one day overtake iOS devices? Isn’t the future pretty clearly signposted?

And if iPadOS Scrivener does ever get built and prove successful, I doubt it would be useful to switch to Windows, as the Windows version would logically, I assume, follow the iPadOS design.

Slàinte mhòr.

26

I think you are missing one important point. The purpose of Project Catalyst is to enable iOS apps to run on Mac OS, not the other way around. Why not? Because Mac OS is much more advanced than iOS or the coming iPadOS, as Katherine pointed out.

So if you have e.g. a game or a very graphic app, which looks great on an iPad, an easy way to port it to OS X would increase the potential user base, because all Mac owners don’t have an iPad. But there are still things that Mac OS can do that iPadOS won’t be able to do for many years, unless Apple decides to make iPadOS X into a slimmer version of Mac OS running on an iPad with true file handling and multi-tasking, and skips the sandboxing and restrictions for app installation. But that would mean that iPadOS and iOS would go completely different routes.

An iPad has more in common with a large iPhone than with a small Mac, and I don’t think Apple will change that and transform the iPad into a touch screen Mac.

27

Shrug There are many more Windows installations than Mac installations, too. By this logic, Mac applications shouldn’t exist in the first place.

IMO, iOS devices outnumber Macs because they serve fundamentally different markets. Probably everyone who has a computer also has a phone, but not everyone who has a phone has, wants, or can afford a computer. Tablets lie somewhere in between the two, but IIRC the statistics indicate that tablet sales are relatively stagnant: everyone who wants one, already has one.

Katherine

28

Shrug There are people who write in Pages or Word and are happy, too.

Katherine

29

Hi, lunk.

I hadn’t missed the point. I was building from it. And I do think that iPadOS is transforming into a slimmer version of macOS and that its apps (on iPads or Macs) will suit the needs of most consumers, which is the largest part of Scrivener’s market. With some tweaks to the nomenclature, Steve Jobs’ truck analogy pretty much applies, I think.

“When we were an agrarian nation, all cars were trucks, because that’s what you needed on the farm. But as vehicles started to be used in the urban centers, cars got more popular … PCs are going to be like trucks. They’re still going to be around, they’re still going to have a lot of value, but they’re going to be used by one out of X people.”

Hi, Katherine.

For me, the Windows analogy has no relevance as we are talking about Apple products.

Yes, iOS serves a (slightly, IMO) different market, but it is the biggest market and it is growing; and its influence will continue to grow with its apps having Trojan Horse access into macOS territory.

And, yes, people write in Word and Pages and Ulysses (and Scrivener) on iOS devices and they are happy. All of those users are, I think, part of Scrivener’s target market.

Not sure why anyone would shrug at potential customers, especially when Apple is making it crystal clear where it sees the future of computing. As referenced above, Steve had that awareness years ago and made the company’s intentions known to all.

I appreciate we see things differently. Keith might share my view or yours or have a unique perspective. He might also make any future decisions based on a personal or emotional preference rather than his or anyone else’s logical train of thought. I prefer macOS and Scrivener 3, but I can see its role diminishing as more and more people drift away from Macs and macOS software. Lots of technologies fade: fax machines, film cameras, VHS recorders, DVDs, etc. Some people cling on. Others move on. I think iPadOS is a watershed moment. That’s all.

The point isn’t about what is better now. It is about what people will use in the future, and fewer of them are going to be using macOS apps / devices, I think. iOS has momentum and traction, at least in my part of the world. macOS doesn’t.

Slàinte mhòr.

EDIT: In the UK, some charities accept donations of furniture. Items are either sold to generate income or donated to people in need. We sold a home last year and had four home-office desks to donate (decent quality; £1500 each when bought in 2012; still in perfect condition; surely worth a few quid or useful to someone). None of the charities would take the desks: “No one wants desks any more. No one has desktop computers.” Lots of other furniture was willingly accepted, even a piano. Indicative, no?

My whole premise is based on what I see happening around me. Not on whether I want something else to happen or whether macOS is a better OS or not. Looking at where the puck is headed; not where it is or was.

Why focus on making parts for trucks when most customers are buying cars? And if a car part can fit a truck, well…

Going to be interesting to see how things stand in a few years, especially if Apple releases ARM-based laptops.

Thanks to both of you for sharing your thoughts.

30

Interesting points JoRo. Funnily enough, as I read your comment about the train and the prevalence of tablets and similar devices, I was sitting in a café. I counted 5 people using laptops, 1 iPad and a handful of Luddites reading physical books.

To your point about the desirability of a single app for all platforms, I doubt you’d find too many app developers who would disagree. No doubt it would make life an awful lot simpler!

The thing that strikes me about Scrivener iOS is that it was designed precisely for the kind of customer that you are talking about - those who simply want to write and then export their work in the simplest fashion. Judging by the forums, problems arise when people expect the iOS version to perform exactly the same tasks as the desktop version. It can’t because iOS and its native devices simply don’t have the capabilities. Whether iPadOS (it’s an awful name, BTW) and device capability will ever be able to close the gap sufficiently is the question. It’s a big gap at the moment. It’s also worth revising slightly your categorisation of Scrivener. Yes it’s a consumer-focused app, but it hides a set of extremely powerful features that allow people to write and publish their work, and marshal all of the associated research, in one place.

The wider point you are making is very interesting. When you think about it, Scrivener started development before iOS even existed. Smart phones and tablets have since become incredibly popular. Most organisations have strategic risk management practises in place, which identify potential problems and plan for mitigation. Given the signs emanating from Apple (never mind Microsoft), it would be surprising if any macOS developer hadn’t embarked on a similar exercise. This is such an excellent product, I have no doubt that we’ll all still be using it in future decades.

31

Let’s not be judgemental just because someone is using an older technology. Physical books still meet many use cases ebooks don’t (and can’t). “Mature technology” is not the same as “obsolete technology.”

Which, I think is the point that many are missing. KB has a strongly stated core vision for how Scrivener works, and it relies upon certain plumbing in MacOS to deliver that functionality. Some of the limitations in the iOS version of Scrivener are there not because KB felt those limitations were a good fit, but because of how Apple implemented that plumbing (and the parts they didn’t). If Apple never implements it in iPadOS, then it’s a moot point.

It’s like fiber internet – it doesn’t matter how much better it is than cable or DSL, if your local providers never roll it out.

32

I think you and I disagree about the premise. I don’t see writers as “consumers,” or Scrivener as a “consumer” application. Scrivener users, by definition, are “creating” not “consuming,” at least when they are using the application.

Katherine

33

My point is that L&L has always understood that other platforms and other writing applications exist, and that many people may prefer those platforms and applications. Most people aren’t writing 50,000+ word manuscripts. And yet somehow Scrivener continues to be used by more and more people.

Katherine

34

A throw away remark, made in the context of a discussion about the future of technology. I was one of the Luddites. I am a book person. Always will be. Lighten up! :smiley: