This is insulting. Money wasn’t the issue. The skill of the coders we could find was - even a professional iOS coding company. I may have “taught myself” to code, but that was fifteen years ago; I’m not a hobbyist coder now. I wrote the iOS version myself because that was the best way of getting it done right.
To set the record straight, Keith, that was what Rayz said, not me. My comment that he was responding to—about comparing you/Lit&Lat with Microsoft and Apple—has got deleted. My subsequent response to Rayz was to point out that NWP is also built on the Apple text engine.
Mark
Er … not sure what happened there, but it was me who said that, not Xiamenese.
My mistake: I assumed that Nisus was using a custom engine since it seems to handle text much better than I would’ve expected given that I’ve heard a lot of blame being dropped on Apple because of their text framework. For example: tables aren’t up to snuff because Apple doesn’t do a great job at table-handling. Yet, tables are great in Nisus that is built on the same RTF framework. I seem to hear that this that and the other would be so much better if Apple would do this that and something else from numerous people, and my tiny little bugbear is that if others can do it, then it’s doable. Is it easy? Maybe not. Should it be done? If it isn’t part of your vision for Scrivener then no, it shouldn’t.
Apple messes up plenty, but I think what’s getting blurred here is what is being left out as a design decision and what is a problem with Apple kit.
Sorry folks! Not sure what happened there - that was supposed to be a quote from Rayz so I’m not sure how Mark got attributed. The point is indeed scope. Both Nisus and Scrivener are built on top of the Apple text system. Nisus roll their own tables replacement whereas I stuck with Apple’s tables because, although far from perfect, they do the job and my focus has been on the many other features that Scrivener has (Scrivener’s replacement will have no native table support).
There are other considerations too: Nisus has its own RTF converter; I use the Apple one but heavily modified (the Apple one doesn’t support images, footnotes, headers and footers etc). Implementing my own tables code means implementing my own RTF code for them, (Of course, I have written my own DOCX converter - but that was a huge job in itself.)
There has been an argument that using Apple’s text system is a problem and that pro apps should build their own text system from scratch. My point was only that this is wrong. The Apple text system provides some great basics. Sometimes it has some serious problems - like in iOS 10 where it was unforgivably broken - but generally it provides a good jumping-off point. How much is built on top of it depends on the app. Despite some moans, Scrivener has one of the best text systems on the Mac in terms of rich text import and export - second only to dedicated word processors. But dedicated word processors will win out because they are dedicated, whereas Scrivener’s strengths - and development focus - lie elsewhere.
Since you’re here Keith, I just want to say that I hope you’re reading some of these posts in the manner they were intended - I’ll reiterate that we’re all here because we love Scrivener (at least I hope so) 
For me, it’s all a bit of an interesting thought exercise - the current state of Scrivener, the apparent future strategy of Apple, and how the cards might fall. I also like the fact that we can have a robust debate here in the forums. Whatever else happens, Scrivener is and will remain an amazing piece of software, and I just couldn’t imagine writing without it. Thank you!
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the kind words. And absolutely. Debate and disagreement are always welcome around here as long as it’s polite. I only get ratty when people hint that I should retire or imply that our business will fail if we don’t do x or y. Unfortunately I haven’t had much time to get involved in the debate owing to being away for family reasons and various coding and L&L necessities.
I will note that your point that there is nothing in Scrivener that could not be ported to a touch interface is true only to a point. It’s probably true that any particular individual feature in Scrivener could be ported. It’s definitely (at least from a practical standpoint) not true that you could port the entirety of Scrivener for macOS to iPadOS, let alone iOS, though. Multiple split views, collections over the binder, complex inspector views, hundreds of features tucked away in menu items - i(Pad)OS just isn’t built for that sort of complexity. An app still has to be much more “on the surface” for i-devices, even though a lot is possible on the iPad these days. If you tried to add all of that - even though the hardware might be able to handle it - you’d end up with a horrible iPad app.
There’s a reason that Apple hasn’t ported Xcode to the iPad - and Scrivener on the Mac is essentially Xcode for writers.
All the best,
Keith
Wait… I thought someone decided that books and apps were not the same…
KB, as a lapsed +3+ I would like to chime in with a completely off topic comment. commence fanboydom…
I, as a nerd who can’t get out of the corporate world, am still thrilled by your success as the author of scrivener. It is a novel that influences the writings of other authors. While you haven’t written your work of fiction, and you may never actually finish this work of non-fiction, your steadfast dedication to the plot and consistent output is something at which many on this forum marvel. All whilst raising a family.
Huzzah! to you. My the future continue to shine bright for you and yours.
A finger is not nearly as precise as a mouse or trackpad. If you have a 13" MacBook Pro and look at Scrivener it should be rather obvious that it wouldn’t work without mouse or trackpad, and the iPad is actually built to be used primarily with your fingers.
If the iPad worked like a Macbook, it would be a Macbook and not an iPad. 
Maybe that’s the book KB should write? “Writing Scrivener - how a personal script became a bestselling cross-device app” or something like that. 
.
That seems rather a sad side effect!
Ray
Yes… thank god for proofreaders in my “not online” writing. Typo corrected
My uncle was a wizard engineer. He could have sold his company in his late 30s and “lived” without any financial worries (we won’t say “retired” as that has, for some, negative connotations). He wanted to travel. He wanted to sculpt. He dreamt of being an artist, even if only an amateur one. At 44, he was 6 feet under. Tens of millions of net worth couldn’t save him from stress.
Walk around any town today and you’ll see that the majority of old single people are women (any visit to a residential home will tell you that men die earlier than women). Look at the late-middle-age couples wandering around and if one of them is clearly ill – using a walking aid or a chair etc – it will in the majority of cases be the man. Men might think they are supermen, but they’re not. They always think they are the exception, but they’re not. Their time is short, and it grows shorter and their life more heavily taxing with each passing year. Life flies. Work devours. What remains is dust.
I don’t think you should “retire”, but if you’re at a point where you could “live” (and finally write your novel) rather than work under the pressure of building Mac Scrivener, iOS Scrivener, and Scapple; overseeing Windows development; considering Linux development; running L&L; dealing with the tax man and the VAT man and the NI man; dealing with the accountants and the lawyers; dealing with all the laws and regulations and constant changes in terms of tech and business practices, etc, etc, etc, then I would urge you to take that opportunity: for yourself, your partner, and your family. In 10 years, you’ve handled 30 years of regular work and stress. You deserve to suck on the marrow of your many successes. By the time one realises the toll exacted by such a heavy workload, it is all too often far too late. We stand too close to see the big picture. Hit the wall: too hard.
And I don’t think L&L will fail. But from my experience, I see people drifting away from Scrivener because they want the consistency and simplicity (of interface and syncing) that other apps are making them habituated to. We have five Scrivener 3 licences in my close family. I am the only person still using Scrivener today. The only one who if S4 was launched tomorrow would be interested in upgrading (if things were largely as they are now). That’s all fine by me, but from what I see around me, I get the feeling that Scrivener is losing out (not failing, but losing out) as the world moves on to different and more seamless application models.
I really think an iPadOS Scrivener running on macOS would suit most users (and bring some wandering sheep back into the fold). If there had to be a second Mac-only add-on (not separate) app that handled more complicated procedures for the fewer users who need such a tool, so be it. But from what I know of the writers around me, a universal app would suit them far more than the arrangement we have now (which I love, but find myself being atypical in that love).
bemorewithless.com/the-story-of … fisherman/
Written (though clumsily) with love and respect and a from-the-bottom-of-my-heart sense of care.
Slàinte mhòr.
I think Keith explained quite clearly that L&L’s sales numbers do not reflect the drop off that you claim to be seeing. It takes a lot of chutzpah to tell the owner of a business that you understand his market better than he does.
Katherine
I think that’s the problem. In science we call that “anecdotal evidence”. What you think you are seeing is not even an objective observation but filtered through your own perspectives, experiences and prejudices.
Where I live there is almost no difference in life span for men (81) and women (84). Part of the difference is explained by higher death rate for men during their first 20 years, not by them dying when they are middle aged.
Isn’t it really yourself you’re telling to “retire”? 
Let me state as forcefully as I can while remaining polite, this use has ZERO desire for a universal app. I love the two versions for the way they work with the respective hardware platforms. I don’t think Keith should retire (unless he wants to get away from being told how to run his business).
Keith, thanks for having the vision to develop Scrivener in the first place and continuing to develop is as the hands down best way to write long form on Mac, iOS and Win.
Your experience of people drifting away from Scrivener seems a little thin, if you don’t mind me saying so, and you shouldn’t, given how you continue to advise L&L to shut up shop.
Scrivener isn’t perfect, but I’ve yet to come across a piece of software that is, and I don’t think your sample pool of five people is compelling proof that L&L is steering off-course.
Pardon my American ignorance, but does Slàinte mhòr translate to a Noodge?
5 seconds on Google would have answered that question, and saved you from conforming to the stereotype of American ignorance.
Seeing as this thread seems to really be about iPadOS and what may or may not be possible, rather then drifting into negativity or name calling, I’m going to say that this still sums it up quite nicely for me.
I agree with Chjipotle -“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.”
iPadOS does seem to be a significant departure from previous versions of IOS. So the question is really what is now possible?