I’m gathering from all this discussion that the answer is, “no one knows” yet, lol. So I will definitely be holding off upgrading until I hear something official from all you at L&L.
I don’t know why Apple is so determined to make mobile a mobile OS the primary platform to get work done. It seems by announcing iPadOS, they are finally acknowledging iOS cannot serve as a full replacement for anyone’s primary OS if they are doing anything beyond consuming content. However, rather than bringing MacOS to the iPad (or replacing the iPad with another mobile hardware product better suited for MacOS), they are choosing to develop a 3rd OS??
This is why Apple’s leadership has been frustrating me as of late. They continually make things harder than it should be - not even out of trying to be visionary any more, but rather just sheer stubbornness!
Because there is a lot of work that many people can do from their phone or tablet, beyond just consuming content. I may need a full PC to logon to work’s change management system and create a new change request from scratch, but if I’m reusing documentation that was previously written, I can do it from a mobile device. The change reviewers don’t need a full PC, they can do their work from a management device. 95% of the email threads I am involved in (and I am an email architect) can be handled from my mobile device. In theory, I could even remote in to the systems I help manage and run simple, pre-created scripts to help determine status and troubleshoot errors – from a mobile device.
Most of my job could be done from a mobile device. My employers spend a LOT of money on acquiring, provisioning, deploying, maintaining, and repairing laptops. Almost every person who needs a laptop also needs a mobile device. There are many jobs in the company where all they need is a tablet or smart phone – they don’t need a full PC. At the same time, the systems required to provision, deploy, and monitor mobile apps already provide a lot of telemetry and tracking that the legacy apps don’t have. Another opportunity for better automation, better monitoring, and reduced costs.
Apple would be outright stupid to ignore those trends and leave the money on the table – especially because the Android ecosystem is NOT ignoring this, and Apple is actually the little guy in the global PC, smartphone, and tablet markets. The iPhone’s (and iPad’s, to a lesser degree) dominance in North America is the only part of the globe where they enjoy that advantage, and Android is eating into their margin all of the time because Android-based manufacturers can make lower-end smartphones that compete with the iPhones on price point. Apple HAS to make the necessary changes now, or face returning to the luxury niche they used to occupy.
I’m not an Apple developer, but taking a look through the beta iPadOS documentation, it looks like it’s the same base code as iOS – if you know how to write an iOS application, it will work on iPadOS. But iPadOS seems to have places where they are extending the functionality – new OS-based services, or more functions/greater functionality in specific APIs – to meet the greater CPU/memory configuration that iPads enjoy over iPhones. It’s stupid to have greater real estate, battery, CPU, and memory and not allow your devs to take advantage of it.
Assuming I understand correctly, then iPadOS and iOS are not really two separate operating systems so much as iOS and iOS+ – the builds that go on to the iPads have extra functionality compiled in. If this is the route they are going, where you essentially write one set of source code that has platform-dependent extra chunks of functionality, a bunch of (essentially) conditional directives that customize the code for which OS it’s on. That’s a really useful way to do it, as it means that all iOS apps can continue to be used on iPads, and developers who WANT to do more on iPads now have a way to make sure all that extra resource drain can only be run on the platform that can handle it.
Personally, I like focus, and I like the way Apple is heading.
Some people say that iPad Scrivener ported to the Mac through Catalyst would be a compromised app. Some people say that Apple products have to be compromised to accommodate Windows syncing. Somewhere along the line, compromises always have to be made.
Presumably Keith knows how many users there are for each platform and how many of those users need to sync across the Apple–Windows space . Do I want Apple Scrivener to sync through Dropbox just to satisfy Windows users? No, I don’t. I am an Apple user by choice. I have no interest in accommodating Windows users, but accept that Keith probably sees a wider need to. That said, people hoping for iCloud syncing are told to use other methods, such as iTunes. Could the same not apply if iCloud syncing was brought in exclusively: use other syncing methods if iCloud doesn’t suit?
Syncing is a side issue here. Main interest is how Scrivener will work with iPadOS. For me, as someone who likes focussed apps and who knows people who find Mac Scrivener overwhelming and too fiddly to master, I hope that Keith will bring iPad Scrivener to the Mac at some point (either alongside S3 or as a replacement). As mentioned by Devin above, many people can work on iPad devices / apps, and to have those apps available on a clamshell Mac would be a win for L&L as far as I can tell from the users and writers I know. And particularly if those users and writers didn’t have to think about syncing as the current arrangements demand that they do.
We’re getting a little off topic here, but since the original topic is pretty much answered, I guess that’s ok,.
Personally, I have always hated iOS, and I don’t like super-focused apps. I have only had one iPhone (iPhone 6). I only have an iPad because as a web designer, I need to know how my websites actually look on the device because of its dominance in America, and sometimes previewers don’t render it the same.
I like to be able to get everything done in one app, which is my biggest draw to Scrivener. I can research, outline, draft, revise, and compile/publish in one app. I have never understood people paying for “distraction free writing apps” - literally paying more for less. Doing it in a mode like what L&L have done makes sense (or a free app, and some are), but literally paying to be so laser focuses leaves me just perplexed. I don’t even use Scrivener’s Composition Mode - when I’m drafting, I don’t see anything except what is happening in my mind’s eye. But when I realize I need to look at something - my research, reference material, etc - I don’t want to have to close what I’m doing down and go pull it up somewhere else. And that goes for all work I do on the computer, not just writing.
I keep seeing both Apple and Windows trying to say their mobile devices can now “finally replace your laptop.” I don’t want to replace my laptop. Laptops have almost replaced my need for a desktop (except when I’m doing extensive video editing - which can be done on laptops as well, they are just far out of my price range), but tablets, just like their apps, seem to be (as you put it) more focused.
IMO, a touchscreen interface will never surpass a keyboard and mouse for doing complex projects quickly. Just due to the size of our fingers alone, a touch screen cannot be as precise as a mouse, or even a trackpad (I spend most of my day in Adobe CC). Also, there are countless hours I spend where I’m not near a table and I don’t want to stand. Working on a tablet in your lap doesn’t even begin to compare to working on a (appropriately named) laptop.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not bashing the idea of tablets smartphone productivity. They certainly have their uses - especially when you need to be doing something on the go or out in the middle of nowhere. Whenever I’m at an event selling copies of my book, it is indeed my iPad that goes with me. iPad + Square is the best thing to happen to small businesses in a long, long time. But except for some niche uses, everything I can do on a tablet I can do better and faster on a laptop.
That’s why I LOVE the idea of 2-1 laptop/tablets. I just can’t figure out why Apple won’t make a 2-1 laptop. If MBP could do that, it might be enough for me to look past no longer being able to fix and upgrade it on my own… maybe.
I much prefer MacOS, over Windows. I do prefer Android over iOS, mostly because it is more customizable, but the big thing is I really am still in love with the idea of a mobile WORKSTATION, not working from a mobile device.
Of course, Adobe would switch over to Linux, that’d be the best thing for me, but that’s not ever happening as long as Windows still exists XD
‘One super-duper app’. - Hell no and most of the people I work with feel the same.
An app that is tight and lightweight though still powerful such as Scrivener on iPad and the bells and whistles version on Mac suits me fine.
Don’t screw up both by trying to merge them together.
iOS whether the standard version or iPadOS is superb for content creation. The tweaks in iPadOS just improve that experience on the larger screen along with a few other productivity improvements.
As to comments about most popular operating system, I won’t get into that other than to say blind stats overwhelmingly based on huge low cost volumes in one platform don’t come close to reflecting creation use. Reminds me of the claim on possibly this very site quite some time back that due to Google and partners (effectively) giving away Chromebooks especially in education they owned some amazing percentage of the market and by now they would have relegated Mac and perhaps Win to also-ran. Raw sales volumes (or giveaways) don’t necessarily reflect productive use percentages.
In terms of ergonomics, I personally prefer working on a laptop.
I don’t think the Wish List forum represents most users.
I constantly read (on the forum and in reviews), and I constantly hear, people noting that Mac / Windows Scrivener has a steep and difficult learning curve. The real question is whether the complexity brings in more users than it puts off. In my experience, having watched users drift away from Scrivener or refuse to embrace it, I think more people want a simpler app, but not a simple one. People really are wired differently these days: so many have grown up using mobile and tablet devices. The traditional PC platform and PC app space is being eroded and replaced.
Scrivener for iPad is a powerful tool, and with the new iPadOS, the future looks very promising. I don’t think Scrivener for iPad is a distraction-free writing environment, but I do think it is easier for most people to use. With all the changes that Apple is making, it is only going to get more capable. And if anyone visits the App Store, they can see that Apple is pushing apps like Ulysses over Scrivener: Apple is making it clear where it is heading technologically.
And if you have have 1 million people who want to use the Scrivener for iPad version (on an iPad or Mac) over 10,000 who want to use the current Mac version, which one should the developer actually develop? We may not be at that point at the moment, but Apple is certainly pushing everyone in that direction, and there are certainly more potential users and writers that Scrivener could attract away from using other applications, such as Ulysses and Word et cetera.
And if the one super app was better than what we have now and was bought by more people, would some here still dig their heels in and refuse to change? For me, change is happening already among the writers I know. Perhaps other people here have very different experiences. Perhaps Apple’s executives and engineers are joking when they say they see iPads as being the only computers most people will ever need and that all the work they have done in the last decade is a smokescreen to really push the Mac? None of that makes sense or holds with the facts around us.
Everyone seems to ignore, or have forgotten, that the developer (KB) has stated that he will develop his app to meet the needs he sees for himself and in the hope that others will enjoy using it; his aim never has been to dominate the world of writing in any form. To that end, the website has links to other apps for those who don’t find Scrivener meets their needs.
So, to me, all this is pointless hot air. And no, I would hate to lose Scrivener from my Mac or be constrained by a cut down version ported from iOS, even though I probably only use a fraction of its capacity. But Scrivenings view, split windows, inspector comments and footnotes, full Compile and snapshots are fundamental to me. And iOS Scriv does none of those satisfactorily, if at all, in my book. If anything would make me abandon Scrivener, such a cut down version would be it!
I am not so sure that Apple has planned out an “IOS+” future for us all. Regarding Catalyst, this comes from a recent interview in Art Technica with the Catalyst team at Apple:
"As for Mac users who might be concerned that their full-featured apps might become watered-down as developers begin using Catalyst, Apple’s Ali Ozer highlighted that Catalyst is just another option alongside AppKit. She also noted that developers will know which approach will be the best fit for their software and users.
“Good developers will know their audience and their users and what they’re going to want,” she said. “This just opens the door for lots of people to consider coming that wouldn’t have even thought about it before. And I think that’s more the target for this particular technology as opposed to someone who has a very complicated, big, heavy-lifting kind of creative app.”
And after a slow down in development for a few years, there has been a recent flurry of new, more powerful Mac laptops and desktops
So from a corporate point of view, Apple seem to be hedging their bets. And that means there are still choices of equipment and software for users and a range of opportunities for developers, which is, IMO, a good state of affairs.
I think once again we are a bit off topic here. I’m not sure what conversations about macOS development have to do with whether or not Scrivener for iOS will be compatible with iPadOS (it will).
If Scrivener for iOS is compatible with iPadOS, it’s intriguing to know if that version of Scrivener will utilise Catalyst and be made available to Mac users … which will, in the longer term, presumably have an impact on the viability of Mac-only development.
With Catalyst and SwiftUI, Apple is ringing in significant changes (see the links just given). Above, Mark made a point about Keith developing Scrivener to meet his needs in the hope that others will enjoy using it. And yet Keith or any developer can only develop with the tools Apple makes available, and if Apple is pushing for change, then what is happening now with iPadOS, Catalyst, and SwiftUI will – it seems – impact on any app Keith can build. And from the writers I know around me, fewer and fewer of them are choosing Scrivener, despite anything I say to urge them otherwise. Perhaps my experience is unique. Perhaps L&L knows its sales are going very well and it isn’t seeing the fall that I am seeing both online and offline. Perhaps Keith really has the energy to develop for iOS and iPadOS as well as separately for macOS and has got an elixir that will allow him to go on developing day and night for decades to come (rather than streamlining his work with the new tools being provided by Apple). Who knows?
I don’t think any of this is “pointless hot air”, other than the attempts by people to close down discussion and who act as if the changes that have happened over the last decade and which are signposted for the future are all just fantasy.
And I don’t think a version ported from iOS would necessarily be constrained or cut-down, so I think it is wrong for people to cast aspersions against a future version of Scrivener when they don’t even know what it will be capable of. Why speak so negatively about a product before it even exists? Perhaps “iOS Scriv does none of those [things, such as compile] satisfactorily [for some people]” at the moment, but it doesn’t mean that a revamped Scrivener for iOS can’t. People are saying they would abandon a cut-down version of Scrivener when they don’t even know how powerful iPadOS is going to allow Scrivener to be: would people really spurn an app that is actually better than anything we have now, that is updated more regularly, that is easier to support, and that is easier to use? And there are plenty of writers who only use iPad Scrivener as we have it now, so why rant against and scorn those people just because they have skills to work on an iPad that those making the criticisms lack themselves? Such self-aggrandising attacks don’t even win Pyrrhic victories: they hold no credibility and cause damage to the app and the company that they claim to admire. Sure, I don’t overly like using an iPad, but I completely respect the work that iPad users produce.
I am fed up with people being so negative about Scrivener, especially on threads like this where they do nothing but diss Scrivener for iOS and all the brilliant work Keith has done. All these childish threats to abandon Scrivener if people don’t get what they want are just so unnecessary. And all the references to games on iPads and how Catalyst isn’t about productivity and how iPads are toys is just plain rude to those people who already do great creative work on iOS: just read the links above.
Why, oh why, are people on the forum mocking the great work that is being done by Apple, Keith, and other developers? I just don’t understand the mindset and the negativity. Is possible change and future potential really that disturbing?
We are at a significant point of change and I really hope Scrivener can have decades of success ahead of it. If Keith keeps things exactly as they are, that’s fine: his choice. If he sees opportunities in Catalyst and SwiftUI, that’s also fine. But can people please stop crapping on Scrivener for iPad (its developer and users) as it is now or what it might become: such comments just damage the brand.
We get it that some people want stasis and are happy to condemn potential without ever actually knowing or trying, but do we need them constantly shouting into their own echo chambers about their own narrow-minded needs, rather than having an open discussion about factual, actual, real-world changes? Rational, fact-based debate might actually help L&L see where things truly are. Threatening to abandon ship and criticising iPad users is just so horribly and distressingly negative. Makes me weep.
I just wish Keith all the best and hope beyond hope that people will stop belittling what he has already achieved with Scrivener for iOS and what he might achieve in the future.
Ray, above, is absolutely right: there are still hardware and software choices out there. However, the direction of software movement is clear: more clout for iPadOS and for Swift UI. From what you say, iPadOS is going to be embraced (at least to some extent), and I think that that is a very good thing. I just hope that we Mac users can also benefit from those developments. If we can’t, we can’t. But I, for one, won’t abandon ship.
So, Ioa, I don’t see this as being off topic as I genuinely think current iPadOS-related developments are likely to bring about changes in the future.
But, of course, your moderation holds sway, so I promise to refrain from any more posts about this.
As long as you characterize all of the people who disagree with you as the above, the following is not a realistic goal.
Several of us have brought up that iOS is currently flawed for being the “base” version of a future version of Scrivener. Previous attempts to point that out have you hand-waving facts away as a blithe “oh, some functionality will be lost” without listening to the explanations that some of that lost functionality is core to what makes Scrivener the app it is.
Here’s the best metaphor I can come up with. MacOS is a high-powered scientific calculator; iOS is currently one of those cheap Staples solar-powered basic calculators. For basic household budgeting, all you need is that cheap calculator – add, subtract, divide, multiply. Maybe raise to the power of 2, maybe square roots, maybe inverse. But if you’re doing trig or calc, you need that scientific calculator. You can use it for your budgeting, for all of the simple stuff, but for more complex functionality and workflow it’s the only choice.
Scrivener is like one of those workflows that requires you to be able to calculate arbitrary exponents and roots, not just ^2 and ^1/2. (Think scrivenings as the equivalent feature.) Scrivenings are a core part of the Scrivener experience. And yet, because of the lack of implementation of the necessary hooks and code in iOS, iOS Scrivener can’t do it the way the full Scrivener can. You can’t do ^x and ^1/x – you can’t perform a key piece of the workflow. And until Apple changes and updates the text system to include the equivalent functionality in iPadOS, that’s how it stands. The cheap calculator has to be replaced with something a little more robust, something that may not be a full TI-NSpire, but has a bit more serious heft.
Now, I hope someone will show me I missed something, but I looked through the beta iPadOS developer documentation. I saw a bunch of new services being added, but I didn’t see any comprehensive enhancements to the text system. Apple seems to be more concerned about making this first push of iPadOS take advantage of better mobility experiences that a tablet can provide, not about making the tablet more closely aligned with MacOS.
But until you can prove that you actually understand and can talk meaningfully about such details, JoRo? You don’t get to characterize the people who are telling you that you don’t understand the way you did. It’s offensive, and it’s short-sighted, and it’s beneath you.
The problem is that you dismiss everyone that doesn’t agree with you as narrow-minded, wanting stasis, not knowing, etc. That’s not a rational, fact-based debate.
You are coming across as extremely stubborn and not listening at all, and not respecting the opinion of others.
As I pointed out in another thread, every single feature of Mac Scrivener exists because either Keith or a large number of users (or both) wanted it. Repeatedly proclaiming the virtues of a hypothetical Mac Scrivener-lite in the face of that reality is getting to be very tedious.
@JoRo, like @Lunk I object to the editorial “we.” Really.
I’m not saying that a cross-platform iOS / Mac Scrivener would make me jump ship to Windows . But if scrivenings, deep compile, or the full-service versions of outliner and corkboard vanished, I’d think about it. Hard.
OTOH, KB and the L&L team came through with a super iOS design. Who am I to say they can’t do a similar cool job for Mac with the new Apple tools while keeping the core things that make Mac Scrivener unique?
And yet again, it’s KB’s business, not mine. Literally. I lost that argument. I’m sure he’ll look at the tools, at his code bases, at market data, and at our (friendly, I hope) debates in the forum. He’ll discuss it with his team. Then he’ll come to his own decision. I’ll agree with it or I won’t (some of each, likely.) Then I’ll make my decision. Speculation before that point may be entertaining, but isn’t productive.
I suppose I shouldn’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t want the iOS version of Scrivener to come to the Mac. I want the missing features of the Mac version of Scrivener to come to the iPad.
Why can’t I have the same compile options available on the iPad? Why can’t I have scrivenings? Why can’t I have a freeform corkboard? And, yes, more on topic, when iOS 13 ships, why can’t I have two separate projects open at once, or two documents from the same project open in two separate panes? (Yes, I know about QuickReference on the iPad, but it’s pretty clunky.) This isn’t talking about two entirely separate processes having the same Scrivener project open at the same time; it’s talking about what we can already do on a Mac or PC.
For that matter, why can’t I rearrange documents on the iPad with drag and drop? Why can’t I drag a PDF into my research folder?
All of these are kind of rhetorical questions, but they’re not completely rhetorical. I’m trying to avoid sounding snippy, but when I’m hearing about people are actually doing on the iPad Pro every day, the subtext of so many “the iPad just can’t handle the power of full Scrivener” posts here–or, let’s be honest, the plain text of them–gets kind of dispiriting. There are people editing 4K videos, NPR-quality podcasts, and, yes, novels. Some of them are, of course, editing them in Scrivener on the iPad. I’ve been one of them. But I can’t help but think of Matt Gemmell’s comparison of Scrivener and Ulysses:
I get that Scrivener is all about KB’s vision of his best writing app, not about being all things to all people. What us iPad-loving nerds would like is for Scrivener on the iPad to get closer to that vision than it is now. We want it to lose a little of that second-child syndrome. I have no doubt that iOS Scrivener will work in iPadOS; I want it to take the next step and take advantage of iPadOS.
Nobody wants a version with missing features, neighbor.
Two reasons.
KB wants to provide the feature but iOS’s implementation of the underlying APIs (the system calls into the central library of shared functions that are made available to all developers so their programs don’t have to reinvent every wheel, and that programs that do the same sort of things have the same sort of look and feel) is limited or missing when compared to the equivalent API on MacOS.
In an attempt to give a useful but wild metaphor, look at the difference between a custom house (MacOS) and a manufactured home (iOS). In the custom home you can use wood studs or aluminum studs, and you can pick the kind of drywall you want, and you have full control over where you place the plumbing and the electrical outlets. When you plan to run heavy current draw in a room, you can run multiple outlets on multiple circuits so you don’t over load a circuit. In the manufactured home, you can pick different finishes and textiles and paint color – all things you can pick in the custom home – and you may even have a couple of layout choices, but you can’t tell them to use wood studs – you’re only going to get aluminum, and you’re only going to get a limited set of finish choices and layouts. You can’t specify those multiple outlets on separate circuits in the same room. You’re stuck with less flexibility in return for the manufactured home being created more quickly and inexpensively.
KB could provide the functionality, but doesn’t want to (for whatever reason).
. But if scrivenings, deep compile, or the full-service versions of outliner and corkboard vanished, I’d think about it. Hard.