I used it for 10 minutes, realized it was NOT what it appeared to be (a modern macOS app combining outlining and todo functionality) and promptly got a refund via iTunes.

Good advice. I've done the same. Decided to refill my penny jar for some useful software.

JakeBernsteinWA wrote:

I used it for 10 minutes, realized it was NOT what it appeared to be (a
modern macOS app combining outlining and todo functionality) and
promptly got a refund via iTunes.

I’m pleased with it as it does the job of maintaining my myriad lists of names, steps, emails, web addresses, and tasks in one place and searchable. I don’t think it was over-hyped or promoted. I went from using Circus Ponies and Notetaker to having neither. I think 10 minutes wouldn’t have been enough of a trial period for me. In an age that a $10/month subscription is the norm, $29 seems like a wise purchase.

It's more that I knew exactly what I was looking for and that this application has a MUCH larger suite of competitors now than in the past. If it had been more polished, more modern, and more inline with the Mac App Store page's description, I probably would have given it a bigger shot, but none of that was true. The experience actually pushed me to look again at Curio 13, which I already own as an alternative to my amateur use of Tinderbox. We'll see how it shakes it.

Jeffery Smith wrote:

I’m pleased with it as it does the job of maintaining my myriad
lists of names, steps, emails, web addresses, and tasks in one place and
searchable. I don’t think it was over-hyped or promoted. I went
from using Circus Ponies and Notetaker to having neither. I think 10
minutes wouldn’t have been enough of a trial period for me. In an
age that a $10/month subscription is the norm, $29 seems like a wise
purchase.

I wish that it had a few more 1980s features, like allowing me to control the item numbering the way Grandview did. Omnioutliner does allow tweaking of the numbering style, but the way it does it drives me nuts.

One signiifcant advantage of Curio, Tinderbox, OmniOutliner and others is active support, from both the developer and the user community. Early days, I know, and Aquaminds need to be given a chance, but I do see this as a critical point for a sustainable product.

JakeBernsteinWA wrote:

It's more that I knew exactly what I was looking for and that this
application has a MUCH larger suite of competitors now than in the past.
If it had been more polished, more modern, and more inline with the Mac
App Store page's description, I probably would have given it a bigger
shot, but none of that was true. The experience actually pushed me to
look again at Curio 13, which I already own as an alternative to my
amateur use of Tinderbox. We'll see how it shakes it.

Jeffery Smith wrote:
I’m pleased with it as it does the job of maintaining my myriad
>lists of names, steps, emails, web addresses, and tasks in one place
and
>searchable. I don’t think it was over-hyped or promoted. I went
>from using Circus Ponies and Notetaker to having neither. I think 10
>minutes wouldn’t have been enough of a trial period for me. In an
>age that a $10/month subscription is the norm, $29 seems like a wise
>purchase.

NickG wrote:

One signiifcant advantage of Curio, Tinderbox, OmniOutliner and others
i s active support, from both the developer and the user community.

At this point in time I think developers who don't develop apps that can be easily accessed on mobile are going to find their numbers of customers continue to shrink. In 2019 I simply would never consider an app like Curio or Tinderbox, no matter how good. I'd take a less full-featured app whose data I can access and edit from a tablet or phone any day.

Of the apps mentioned above only OmniOutliner is cross-platform, but my experience is that development is sporadic and idiosyncratic, the app has glaring UI issues, and the user community is declining (and responses online ranges from great to nonexistent). With the Mac version now raised to $99 and the iOS app now $50 (if you want sync and other features I consider must-have), it seems clear that they're putting the app into maintenance-mode, and aren't interested in new customers. If you look at the forums and their participation in them, the vast majority of discussions are about OmniFocus, the company's bread and butter, with most of the remaining discussions being about OmniGraffle. The inability to easily create and edit and share themes is distinctly unfriendly, they know it, don't want to spend the resources to change it, and no new new features are promised for the future.

Because of this I'd rather use multiple apps with online components than tie myself a a single-platform app.

satis wrote:

NickG wrote:
> One signiifcant advantage of Curio, Tinderbox, OmniOutliner and others
>i s active support, from both the developer and the user community.

At this point in time I think developers who don't develop apps that can
be easily accessed on mobile are going to find their numbers of
customers continue to shrink. In 2019 I simply would never consider an
app like Curio or Tinderbox, no matter how good. I'd take a less
full-featured app whose data I can access and edit from a tablet or
phone any day.

Of the apps mentioned above only OmniOutliner is cross-platform, but my
experience is that development is sporadic and idiosyncratic, the app
has glaring UI issues, and the user community is declining (and
responses online ranges from great to nonexistent). With the Mac version
now raised to $99 and the iOS app now $50 (if you want sync and other
features I consider must-have), it seems clear that they're putting the
app into maintenance-mode, and aren't interested in new customers. If
you look at the forums and their participation in them, the vast
majority of discussions are about OmniFocus, the company's bread and
butter, with most of the remaining discussions being about OmniGraffle.
The inability to easily create and edit and share themes is distinctly
unfriendly, they know it, don't want to spend the resources to change
it, and no new new features are promised for the future.

Because of this I'd rather use multiple apps with online components than
tie myself a a single-platform app.

Personally I'm not so sure that Omni are putting the app into maintenance-mode. It's true that there are gaps in both their development-timeline and their feature-list for OmniOutliner that I'd like them to remedy as soon as possible. And I'm sure that OmniFocus gets major attention because it must be the major earner in their offer. But from the outside it appears they have what could be called a "carousel" model for developing most of their software, putting major effort into each of their apps in turn (apart from OmniFocus) every few years or so.

As a user, I prefer that to the "shooting star" model, where an application is developed like crazy for a couple of years, and then disappears in a puff of smoke. We've seen that too frequently.

satis wrote:

At this point in time I think developers who don't develop apps that can
be easily accessed on mobile are going to find their numbers of
customers continue to shrink. In 2019 I simply would never consider an
app like Curio or Tinderbox, no matter how good. I'd take a less
full-featured app whose data I can access and edit from a tablet or
phone any day.

I'm moving in the opposite direction, lately.

I can email, grade, and in some cases edit on the go, but to do most of my work, I'm finding that I need (1) to be in a physical environment that supports my directed attention; and (2) with specific tools nearby, one of which is my computer (others are my iPad, paper notebook, at certain times a whiteboard, etc.). I've begun to let go of the requirement that an app needs to work any device and am instead making peace with seeking exemplar apps that work exceptionally well on the device in which they're intended.

I'm more aligned with this than the "single app on many devices" model.

- I know few if any apps that are as functional *and* usable on both mobile and desktop devices. The differences in interaction and presentation are an obstacle for me.
- I can collect on mobile devices - notes, clippings etc. But if I want to think, I want the space, multiple windows etc of a desktop (I also endorse @Beck's point on conducive environment)
- There are plenty of ways for me to get data into Curio, Tinderbox etc without the need for mobile versions.
- The very nature of TB and Curio (highly visual) is that they demand significant screen real estate - I don't see either being able to flourish on smaller screen mobile devices. If they spawned cut-down versions, they would lose their character.

Just my view.

Beck wrote:

satis wrote:
>At this point in time I think developers who don't develop apps that
can
>be easily accessed on mobile are going to find their numbers of
>customers continue to shrink. In 2019 I simply would never consider an
>app like Curio or Tinderbox, no matter how good. I'd take a less
>full-featured app whose data I can access and edit from a tablet or
>phone any day.

I'm moving in the opposite direction, lately.

I can email, grade, and in some cases edit on the go, but to do most of
my work, I'm finding that I need (1) to be in a physical environment
that supports my directed attention; and (2) with specific tools nearby,
one of which is my computer (others are my iPad, paper notebook, at
certain times a whiteboard, etc.). I've begun to let go of the
requirement that an app needs to work any device and am instead making
peace with seeking exemplar apps that work exceptionally well on the
device in which they're intended.

Beck wrote:

satis wrote:
>At this point in time I think developers who don't develop apps that
can
>be easily accessed on mobile are going to find their numbers of
>customers continue to shrink. In 2019 I simply would never consider an
>app like Curio or Tinderbox, no matter how good. I'd take a less
>full-featured app whose data I can access and edit from a tablet or
>phone any day.

I'm moving in the opposite direction, lately.

I can email, grade, and in some cases edit on the go, but to do most of
my work, I'm finding that I need (1) to be in a physical environment
that supports my directed attention; and (2) with specific tools nearby,
one of which is my computer (others are my iPad, paper notebook, at
certain times a whiteboard, etc.). I've begun to let go of the
requirement that an app needs to work any device and am instead making
peace with seeking exemplar apps that work exceptionally well on the
device in which they're intended.

Me too - I was pretty excited a couple of years ago when I got an iPad Pro and (and binge-read MacStories articles) and started to think it could be a main machine. But then I didn't get on as well as I thought I would with Scrivener on iOS, I began to find that my research/writing project planning was easier with SheetPlanner than on Aeon (which I tried to use because of the iOS link-up), and because of the complexity of the historical research for my projects, I have been happily tethered to Tinderbox for nearly a decade and *that* is never going to get to iOS. And so the horses for courses protocol kicked in, for platforms as well as apps. So I use the iPad Pro a lot as a 'think-pad', with Ulysses and Bear for exploratory prose and notes; it also has my calendars and Things - for things I can, or prefer to, do away from the main office, but I still think of the office as the place where the heavy-duty research gets done. And, like Beck, I have an extensive analogue support structure than in my case is too messy or large or simply too expansively visual ever to be portable. I also have a dreadful butterfly mind, and being in a specific physical 'workspace' helps the focus.

But I realise that this is probably becoming a minority position overall. My daughter - a student - and my own students wouldn't dream of being office-bound (although graduates seem to be happier with this than undergrads - maybe because they get dedicated, although shared, workspaces). Their reading and their writing and research and communications are all mobile - and most seem to prefer the big iPad to laptops. I couldn't imagine how to work without Tinderbox (and I can't really imagine what a less fully featured derivative of it could be) but my daughter doesn't really see the point of it. And Satis is right: their preferences and needs and not my case seem to be the focus of most app development - for good or ill (I was an early-adopter of Day One - now I can't bear to look at it's bloated narrow spaces and so use the elegant Diarly; my daughter loves DO).

I think the physical really does interact heavily with the mental in a number of ways here. Vive la difference.

This is my sense, too. I use a few iOS/MacOS apps such as ZoomNotes and MarginNote, whose Mac version has close to 100% of the features as the iOS versions. But I prefer working with them on iOS because the apps are highly touch- and pencil-oriented and the iOS experience is much better. I also would be concerned that attempts from Eastgate or Zengobi to port Tinderbox or Curio to iOS would possibly overcommit the developers and kill off the app entirely. Some things are have such OS-specific complex features that they just do not translate.

Beck wrote:

I've begun to let go of the
requirement that an app needs to work any device and am instead making
peace with seeking exemplar apps that work exceptionally well on the
device in which they're intended.

I tried moving my workflow to a high-end iPad with Brydge keyboard and Apple Pencil. My productivity plunged, and I spent way too much time cursing at my failed attempts to navigate with a touch screen. I was better off just using a laptop instead. Then I had Filemaker Pro and Notetaker. If I can ever get past the learning curve, I'll have Tinderbox at my disposal as well.

As a software developer i also can't understand why people like mobiles so much (and work in different places). I have a hard time with my 17" macbook and going even less then that is unthinkable. I even have a hard time reading a PDF on a tablet. I use three 27" screens and that feels good. But maybe its because young people can't afford good housing and therefore they are used to tight space and most have never any large set of data to deal with. Then of course you can do it on your iPad.

Here's a photo from my summer time workplace.
https://imgur.com/a/dCzIHI4
https://imgur.com/a/aiZNfUp

From the technical point: The sad fact is you that still have to have either a very generic looking App or a very unique iPad App. The programming interface is still
so different for even some core technology like text handling. And Android is a different and i mean a really really different new beast, with much worse internals then Apple. Both systems are very good in making sure you are locked in to their operating system, even if this is a system from the same corporation.

- I can collect on mobile devices - notes, clippings etc. But if I want
to think, I want the space, multiple windows etc of a desktop (I also
endorse @Beck's point on conducive environment)

Exactly. You are not alone with this perception. And thats why my Business plan for Infosqueezer says Desktop first. And a lighter compagnion mobile app later. I think that Tinderbox and Curio both could do well too i they offer a restricted iOS viewer where you can fix typos and lookup/present stuff. But please, NOT MOBILE FIRST for my generation.

The correlation between affordable housing and technology choices is an interesting observation.

Let me suggest another effect: those of us who grew up before personal computers became ubiquitous worked with papers on desktops and became habituated to the availability ion space to spread out. A couple of generations have now grown up with electronic screens as their "desktop" and have become habituated to ways of working with limited real estate but unlimited "swappability".

I might think that an earlier generation was just a bemused by the notion of a pocket notebook instead of sheets of foolscap.

As well, it takes time an effort to wean oneself away from large (multiple) screens and keyboards to a single screen/keyboard combined. Young people learn this as they're learning to read and write - we have to train ourselves in new habits and that involves time and work that we may not have, or may not consider a worthwhile investment.

As a related note, I used to hear many people suggest that using pen and paper is intuitive, whereas using screen and keyboard isn't - I used to argue at the time that using pen and paper isn't intuitive - it's something we spend literally years learning as children. Equally, most of us spent years learning how to get the best from our personal computers (are still learning, in many cases). Maybe using mobile devices is in a similar category.

Lothar Scholz wrote:

ABut maybe its because young people can't afford good housing and
therefore they are used to tight space and most have never any large set
of data to deal with. Then of course you can do it on your iPad.

For me the focus is more pragmatic. iMacs, macair's, macbook pro's are just so expensive. It's cheaper to get a high end iPad pro than a low end mac laptop. Someone stated somewhere (sorry, can't remember where), that Apple now has a 48% markup. The cost of purchasing an apple computer is a hurdle in itself. If you can't afford that then desktop only apps won't even be considered, not matter how good.

In terms of people's comments about limited screen estate on an iPad, the iPad Pro 12.9 is awesome. The only limit to its capability is the software. I can create graphics as easily on an iPad with Affinity designer as I can with Affinity designer on my imac. Apple have been steadily heading in the direction of one OS and it seems to be iOS. MacOS has become increasingly unstable and unpleasant to use. Apple's own apps have either been dumbed down in terms of functionality; so they can work on macOS and iOS or retired. Somehow I think desktop only apps are going to struggle. Having said that Catalina will allow the porting of iOS apps to macOS. Should the reverse be possible in the next few year, that would make things interesting.

Someone commented about the need of having data mobile. This is actually crucial in many area from minutes of meetings, to actions and projects as well as communication, policies and a myriad of other documents. However, laptops are becoming increasingly frowned upon in meetings, where tablets are not.

To me, what we're seeing here is the distinction between different categories of work, and the requirements they have for different types of digital tools. I suspect that the main distinction is between "deep work" and what the author Cal Newport rather disparagingly calls "shallow work" (although, for example, getting meetings to work successfully, before, during and after, which Newport tends to categorise as shallow work, often seems to me to require deep thought and careful planning).

But ignoring such quibbles, in my experience the broad distinction does generally hold true. For example, I do a lot of long-form writing. Theorising that I'd be able to do even more if I used those odd moments in the day when I'm not at my desk, I bought an iPad Pro. It's a very nice tool, and I use it for other purposes, but long-form writing? Not much. Mobile versions of Scrivener and Ulysses aren't much use to me. Nor would a mobile version of Notetaker be. When I'm not at my desk, I have the wrong mindset. But I can see that they'd be useful for other kinds of work, in other circumstances.

I was bemused a few years ago when the newest update for Pages had fewer features, including some features that I needed, features that had me using Pages instead of Word or Nisus Pro. The removal of those features appeared to be to allow desktop Pages to be compatible with iPad Pages. I didn't use iPad Pages, and now I don't use either.

To be fair, Pages has gradually reacquired many/most of the features that were suddenly (and unexpectedly) removed.

But it’s not my favourite word processor, even though it’s pretty powerful. Not least because, in common with Apple apps, you can’t mix languages easily in the spellchecker.

But also because all the iWorks apps produce ENORMOUS files. I mean, ridiculously huge files. Take a leaf out of Microsoft’s book, Apple, and use file compression as a matter of course...

For some reason, Notetaker appears to have been removed from the Mac App store. Searching for it by name doesn't bring it up, and clicking on the link from Aquaminds tells you that it is not available in my country or region.

To have it fold even more suddenly than Circus Ponies is disappointing. I realize that I am alone in liking the app, but I think it does fill a niche that is now unfulfilled.

Looks like they released a buggy version and had to pull it from the App Store

https://www.aquaminds.com/blog-1

Ahhhh......
The betas were all basically crash-free unless one was doing something pretty special. This one apparently crashed on startup! They should have a fix very soon.

Notetaker 4 is back up on the App Store now that a surprise bug has been removed.