Will iOS Scriv Work in iPad OS?

Ra
Rayz
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:43 pm
Platform: Mac

Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:45 am Post

lunk wrote:
Rayz wrote:
xiamenese wrote:... in this case one person KB,

... there are much smaller outfits

Smaller than one? :shock:


Hah! :D

No, my mistake. I was referring to Microsoft, Apple and Google, not L&L.

The point is that small software houses have written their own text engines, so I don’t believe company size is necessarily an impediment. Doesn’t mean you should or you need to, but it can be done.
As if I didn't talk enough: Dom on Writing

User avatar
popcornflix
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Row 15 Seat 107

Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:44 pm Post

lunk wrote:
popcornflix wrote:The most powerful iOS apps use custom code and frameworks rather than depending on Apple's code.

Can you give some examples?

Sure, that's easy. LumaFusion is a pro video editing app that can play back 6 streams of 4k video on an iPad Pro. Apple can't do that in Final Cut Pro on a beefy desktop Mac. Luma Fusion was built by some great coders who built their own video frameworks.

Apple's APIs and frameworks are great conveniences and smooth the learning curve. Writing custom code and frameworks is a common practice in software development.
.:popcornFlix:.

User avatar
popcornflix
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Row 15 Seat 107

Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:54 pm Post

xiamenese wrote:
popcornflix wrote:
devinganger wrote:Again, it doesn't have to do with the relative power of the iPads vs. Macs so much as it is what Apple has included in the relevant OS APIs.


The most powerful iOS apps use custom code and frameworks rather than depending on Apple's code. I wish L&L would step up to that. Scrivener's shortcomings are often blamed on Apple's code.

And are those apps programmed by a single coder who is also the coder for the Mac version and another Mac application?


That's a management problem, not an engineering problem.

If L&L couldn't find an expert iOS coder for the money they were offering, they should raise the price. I'd pay much more than $20 for an iOS version of Scrivener with full feature parity with Scrivener OSX. Even more for a modern, intuitive iOS user interface.
Last edited by popcornflix on Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
.:popcornFlix:.

User avatar
popcornflix
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Row 15 Seat 107

Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:18 pm Post

AmberV wrote:And are they building an RTF engine from scratch that is capable of handling the breadth of formatting the PC and Mac versions of Scrivener makes use of?


That's not required. You could still use Apple's code where it works well. Custom code and frameworks are used to replace the functions in Apple's code that are problematic.

Look at the iOS apps from OmniGroup. Sure they use Apple's code, but they write a lot of custom stuff and their functionality is next level.
.:popcornFlix:.

User avatar
popcornflix
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Row 15 Seat 107

Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:27 pm Post

kewms wrote:Keith has said that if it weren't for Apple's frameworks, Scrivener wouldn't exist.


Don't get me wrong: I love Scrivener's design, and I applaud Keith for teaching himself how to program enough to build a thriving business. I think it's wonderful that Apple's frameworks helped him realize his idea in the world.

But the problems in implementing the design of Scrivener iOS (like scrivenings) cannot be solved by relying on Apple's frameworks. Advanced problems require advanced solutions like writing purpose-built code.
.:popcornFlix:.

User avatar
popcornflix
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Row 15 Seat 107

Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:44 pm Post

lunk wrote:How do you measure the ”power” of an app? And in what unit? Horsepower?


Though your response is clearly snark, I'll treat it as if there is a genuine question at its heart.

"Power" when speaking of computer applications is a metaphor. It is not a literal measurement of power output like horsepower. In physics, power is defined as Work divided by Time (P = W / t). As the amount of Work accomplished increases over a stable unit of time, the Power increases, and we would say it is more powerful.

The reason power is used as a metaphor when speaking about computer apps is that it refers to either how much work the app can do over a unit of time, or how much the app helps you get work done over a unit of time.

Because it's a metaphor, this can lead to inconsistent and subjective comparisons in a way that doesn't happen in physics.

For example, since LumaFusion can manage and manipulate huge amounts of complex audio and visual data, it can be said to be more powerful than Scrivener, which does not handle such a big data load. However, Scrivener's design and workflows significantly aid the user in being more productive, so it can be said to be powerful from a different frame of reference.

I hope that clears it up for you.
.:popcornFlix:.

User avatar
popcornflix
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Row 15 Seat 107

Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:50 pm Post

Astaff wrote:Amuses me how people with no understanding of the thought process and decisions made in designing software presume to tell the developer how to do it ‘better.’


You'd be surprised by my level of understanding of those thought processes and decisions.

BTW -I love Scrivener; I just wish L&L would step up to the next level and improve development.
.:popcornFlix:.

User avatar
popcornflix
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Row 15 Seat 107

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:25 am Post

devinganger wrote:Do you have any references or citations to back up this claim?


It's pretty easy to verify; it's not a novel idea or a secret. Just read some interviews or papers coming out of WWDC and other developer conferences. When developers who make apps for iOS talk to other developers, they discuss the custom code they write. (They also talk about wishing that Apple would implement/fix things so they wouldn't have to write so much custom code.)

devinganger wrote:The Apple text system on MacOS is actually pretty powerful, from what I understand, and has a lot of functionality built in -- but it's not easily extensible.


It has a broad general use case. It's poorly suited for something specialized, like screenplay formatting. This is why the major screenwriting app developers scratch-build their own text engines. (To be fair, they have a narrow use case, so their frameworks don't have to cover as much functionality as Apple's.)

devinganger wrote:And Apple did not port all of that functionality to iOS, which is where the problem lies. KB would have to pretty much rewrite the text system from the ground up, and I'm not sure if you comprehend just how much work...


Well, this is where development design and strategy play a crucial role. There are alternatives to using no Apple code or all Apple code. There are a lot of ways to design how an app works. Hypothetically, if the OmniGroup took over Scrivener's development, I think you'd see different approaches to how it was coded.

But let's not kid ourselves. We're just having a fun little spirited internet convo. Nothing any of us says here is going to make any difference in the development plans of L&L.

I fully expect that Scrivener iOS will not have functional parity with OSX any time soon, and L&L will continue to blame Apple.
.:popcornFlix:.

User avatar
devinganger
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:55 pm
Platform: Mac, Win + iOS
Location: Monroe, WA 98272 (CN97au)
Contact:

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:26 am Post

popcornflix wrote:I just wish L&L would step up to the next level and improve development.


Well, your vote counts for exactly the same as mine -- zero.

KB's vision, design, and willingness to code are what matters.
--
Devin L. Ganger, WA7DLG
Not a L&L employee; opinions are those of my cat
Life has a way of moving you past wants and hopes

User avatar
devinganger
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:55 pm
Platform: Mac, Win + iOS
Location: Monroe, WA 98272 (CN97au)
Contact:

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:28 am Post

popcornflix wrote:Hypothetically, if the OmniGroup took over Scrivener's development, I think you'd see different approaches to how it was coded.


It may continue to be called Scrivener, but if they made the kind of radical changes you're suggesting, it would cease to *be* Scrivener.
--
Devin L. Ganger, WA7DLG
Not a L&L employee; opinions are those of my cat
Life has a way of moving you past wants and hopes

User avatar
popcornflix
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Row 15 Seat 107

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:40 am Post

devinganger wrote:KB's vision, design, and willingness to code are what matters.


See? We found something we agree upon.

devinganger wrote:It may continue to be called Scrivener, but if they made the kind of radical changes you're suggesting, it would cease to *be* Scrivener.


The radical parts would be under the hood where the user wouldn't see them.

If L&L somehow started developing Scrivener like the OmniGroup, I think it would be *more* like Scrivener.
.:popcornFlix:.

User avatar
lunk
Posts: 4252
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:24 pm
Platform: Mac + iOS
Location: Sweden 64° N

Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:15 am Post

popcornflix wrote:Though your response is clearly snark, I'll treat it as if there is a genuine question at its heart.

It was a genuine question and your answer confirmed that it is basically a subjective assessment done by each individual who uses an app.

The thing that has surprised me the most in this thread (and a few others with similar discussions) is that people don’t see the apparent similarity between writing a book and writing an app. Both are creative processes, and both require that someone has the creative spark and also the means to create the book/app they envision. But a big difference is that readers seldom request that authors re-write their books with changes in the plot, whereas a lot of people in this forum seems to see it as a human right to have the app of their choice. And when L&L answer "no" and explain that there are technical limitations, people respond by saying "hire more people and fix this!".

Do you think that is what Georg R.R Martin should have done when he ended up having difficulties writing the final part of his book series? Hired a group of authors? Should Patrick Rothfuss do the same?

Some creative works are the result of one persons genius, others are collective creations. Scrivener belongs to the first category, the Omni products to the second.
I am a user, writing non-fiction and science, using:
* Mac Scrivener 3 on a Macbook 12”, MacBook Pro 13”, and iMac 27”, running different OS.
* iOS Scrivener 1 on an iPhone 11 Pro, iPad Air 9.7”, and iPad Pro 12.9”, all running the latest iOS

si
sidderke
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:34 pm
Platform: Mac

Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:36 am Post

Sorry but an app is not like a book. If you would be comparing a game-app, I could follow, but Scrivener is productivity software, it is a TOOL, not something to be merely enjoyed but to be USED.
If a company makes a hammer, you also would see people saying: this design works better to let me do *this* job. Comparing valid feedback from users that use your TOOL, is different from fans being mad that their season didn't end the way they imagined it. There is a different dynamic between a consumer enjoying a work of art and a user using a tool to make a living or to do creating himself. In both, feedback can be important, and in both it's sometimes important to choose which feedback to ignore and which ones to listen to. But once a piece of art is done, it's finished. With an productivity app, there are often changes and refinements to be made, depending on how the user base grows, how the market changes, how it is being used, etc. ...

That doesn't mean there is no creativity involved. I think there is a lot of intelligence, creativity and empathy involved in making an app.

BTW I also would pay a lot more for a full featured iOS app. I think the fact that we have so many limitations has to do with *both* technological limitations, resource limitations (L&L is a small company, with still I think a pretty niche public - hey, I'm doing my job talking to people about it whenever I can!) and other priorities or vision by the developer. I also have deep respect for Keith who still made one of the greatest and most flexible tools on the Mac that in my opinion no other app can touch in quite the same way.

And every day we learn more about iOS 13. I yesterday learned there will be different Background-Task APIs to let an app do stuff in the background that before this, it would do in the foreground. We have pinned files in Apple's Files app that keeps stuff downloaded and automatically synched, which used to be a big limitation in how Scrivener iOS could theoretically work with iCloud Drive. (I did a test in another thread to prove this and got some feedback from the Scrivener team). There is the new Pencill and Markup api, that *maybe* (could be wrong) changes how Scrivener is able to work with PDF's inside it's app. L&L said in the past you couldn't highlight a PDF inside Scrivener iOS because of the limitations in how Apple's built in PDF viewer works on iOS, while it is possible in Mac. I'll be curious to see how Scrivener iOS evolves (or not) with the pretty big changes Apple announced for iOS 13/iPadOS.

User avatar
lunk
Posts: 4252
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:24 pm
Platform: Mac + iOS
Location: Sweden 64° N

Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:04 pm Post

sidderke wrote:Sorry but an app is not like a book.

There are many similarities. A how-to book is also a tool.

Both are creative processes with a start and an end - the finished product. And in both cases it is an option for the creator to improve the product, or not.
I am a user, writing non-fiction and science, using:
* Mac Scrivener 3 on a Macbook 12”, MacBook Pro 13”, and iMac 27”, running different OS.
* iOS Scrivener 1 on an iPhone 11 Pro, iPad Air 9.7”, and iPad Pro 12.9”, all running the latest iOS

Ta
TadeoBlanco

Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:35 pm Post

popcornflix wrote:
Astaff wrote:Amuses me how people with no understanding of the thought process and decisions made in designing software presume to tell the developer how to do it ‘better.’


You'd be surprised by my level of understanding of those thought processes and decisions.

BTW -I love Scrivener; I just wish L&L would step up to the next level and improve development.


My point was you (and all of us) have zero understanding of Keith’s though process and decisions, other than his oft stated point that Scrivener is the result of his desire for such a program that fits his view of what it should be (along with the best of customer suggestions that synch with his plans for Scrivener).

Telling him to be like some other company and use their development process is unlikely to achieve much (IMHO)