I agree with the sentiment of this thread. But not entirely. I am in agreement that Aeon Timeline is software that is particularly useful to writers. I also agree with @SCN: Aeon 3 should appeal to many more writers than it appears to. Apps like Plottr are merely pretenders to AT3’s crown. If you go on the public roadmap for Plottr and head to the Ideas section, request after request asks for features that AT3 already does, and does extremely well.
So why are these writers not using AT3? Plottr’s defined and narrow marketing focus. Everyone knows that Plottr is for plotting stories and therefore is exclusively for writers. Aeon is, in my opinion, the best story planning software out there, but it struggles to tell its own story.
This is something that I have discussed with the development team. A quick glance at the AT3 website shows data, data, data, data. Sure, stories are effectively a mix of characters, places, plot lines, beats, themes; all of which could be viewed as story data. But writers don’t think of stories in terms of data. Historians do, researchers do, lawyers probably don’t. So, back to @SCN and his question: who is the app primarily intended for? I also think the marketing for the app should focus on writers, with the other uses as an addendum to the main market. Or, perhaps, as I mentioned to the dev team, the focus should be on story.
Lawyers tell stories (what happened to whom, when and why, and what is likely to happen next as a result of that pieced together story). Historians are collecting the elements of stories that have occurred in the past, and using those elements to portray and present those stories to present and future generations. Project managers are mapping out the future of projects, which is effectively the story of what needs to happen to achieve successful targets.
So, Aeon Timeline 3 is a story telling powerhouse and needs, I think, to be marketed as such if it wants to steal the market from other, inferior apps.
But, being able to tell stories doesn’t mean that AT3 should be developed as a replacement for either Scrivener or Ulysses. I have to disagree with @Arkelao. Adding a text generation system to AT3 is far from a minor addition. Software like Scrivener and Ulysses have been developed for twenty years (in Ulysses’ case) and are best in class at what they do. The windows version of Scrivener took much longer than expected to get anywhere near the macOS version, because Scrivener for Mac and Ulysses both utilise macOS’ text generation systems. Something the devs for Scrivener Windows had to laboriously emulate in Windows. AT3 would also struggle as I don’t believe it is a macOS native app, so the devs would have to write their own text generation system and Windows’ text systems are a poor cousin of the mac’s systems.
So I think apps should do what they do best and stick with that. Scrivener and Ulysses are for writing stories and software like AT3 is for plotting and tracking stories. I do however think AT3 would benefit from a wider array of export formats centred around text. Being able to export narrative outlines and backstories in a docx and/ or markdown format and open it in Word or Google docs would bring in even more writers. This accompanied by a more focussed marketing strategy should all draw more users, however they tell their stories, to this invaluable app.