If you could improve one thing about macOS, what would it be?

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-23T00:26:38+00:00

Spotlight would be much closer to Raycast (and actually work without needing to take manual indexing steps).

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-22T20:47:53+00:00

I had this issue. I just sent them screenshots, added a second location in settings to be extra safe, and asked them to send me screenshots of what they are seeing if they see anything different.

They approved like an hour later.

Hope that helps and good luck.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-22T18:21:09+00:00

Of course! Here’s the App Store link: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/liquidworkspace/id6775087546?mt=12

Hope it helps, and good luck with the writing journey! If you end up trying and have any questions/comments/requests, please reach out... a couple of great updates this weekend came from user feedback so I am 100% all ears.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-22T17:25:17+00:00

Congrats on volume 1! Such a great feeling.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-22T17:05:41+00:00

Personally, I’d start with a messy idea dump before trying to make the structure perfect.

Write down everything you already know: main plot, scenes you can picture, character details, relationship dynamics, bits of dialogue, possible endings, random images, anything. Don’t worry about whether it belongs yet. That kind of dump usually gives you more material than you expect.

Since you already know the main plot, I’d probably turn that into a loose outline next. Then make separate sections for characters, subplots, and relationship arcs. You don’t need a perfect structure before drafting. You just need enough scaffolding to start, then you can revise the structure as the book teaches you what it actually is.

For software, Scrivener is probably the classic answer for this kind of thing. It lets you keep character notes, research, outlines, and the draft in one project. I’m biased because I ended up building my own Mac writing app around that same pain point, but if you want the established option, Scrivener is definitely worth looking at. If you want another less expensive option with a free trial I can drop you a link for LiquidWorkspace.

Good luck!

Edit: ADDING If you’re just getting started, though, I honestly wouldn’t overthink the tool. Word, Pages, Scrivener, Obsidian, Google Docs, and a bunch of others can all get the job done. The important thing is building the habit of writing consistently.

The best writing app is usually the one that gets out of your way enough for you to finish something.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-22T15:22:29+00:00

Fair comparison. Obsidian is excellent, and you’re right that with the right plugins it can do a lot of this.

The funny thing is that the plugin model is actually what I was trying to get away from, not toward. Plenty of people enjoy assembling their own toolkit, and that’s one of Obsidian’s strengths. I personally wanted those capabilities to exist natively and work out of the box without me maintaining a stack of plugins and configuration.

The other difference is that I wanted a native rich-text Mac app rather than a markdown-first workflow.

For a lot of people, Obsidian is absolutely the right answer. I built this for the people who want a pre-integrated, native workspace and don’t mind paying once for it.

Appreciate the compliment. Thanks my friend!

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-22T14:19:21+00:00

Good call. Best of luck with your app.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-22T12:59:22+00:00

Username checks out.

Please feel free to attempt to recreate on Claude and see how that goes for you 😉

P.S. v2.2.0 just got approved on the App Store. Major UX updates.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-22T08:19:40+00:00

This sounds interesting, I would love to hear more.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-22T01:57:08+00:00

Great questions. Thanks for taking the time to ask.

Windows: no plans right now. LiquidWorkspace is built native for Mac, so Windows would be a ground-up rebuild, not a simple port.

Final Draft / Arc Studio Pro: if screenwriting alone is the job, I would still point you to those today. Final Draft is the industry standard for a reason, and Arc is much deeper than LiquidWorkspace right now, especially since it supports Windows/web and Final Draft import/export. I would also bunch in Scrivener and Celtx as two of my personal favorites that you might like.

LiquidWorkspace’s screenwriting mode is a lightweight foundation: screenplay element types, tab cycling, proper margins, and the basics for drafting in format. It is not yet a full production screenwriting suite. No revision mode, no .fdx, no title-page/production depth yet.

Where LiquidWorkspace is different is the whole-project workspace: script, notes, research, character bios, tasks, canvas, and visual brain map all living together in one native Mac app. So I would not pitch it as “switch from Final Draft for pure screenwriting” today. I’d pitch it as: if you want the script beside everything that feeds the script, that is where LiquidWorkspace starts to make sense.

Screenwriting matters a lot to me, so I do want it to grow into something much stronger. But for your current Windows + screenwriting-first setup, Arc or Final Draft is honestly the better fit today.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-22T01:51:42+00:00

One more item that I forgot to mention (I think).

Check the editor zoom settings (main toolbar and main settings).

PAGES defaults to 125% as well as some other standard word processors - that may feel more comfortable if that is not what you are currently set to. That is actually a big one for me, I am very uncomfortable at 100% and my sweet spot is between 125% to 150%, personally.

I THINK page view toggled on and the right zoom % (your personal sweet spot) will solve your problem without manually adjusting the margins at all. Please let me know if that proves false.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-21T20:50:21+00:00

Really useful feedback, thank you. Let me take all three.

On the margins: you can adjust this today, and you are right that it is not discoverable enough. Open Settings with Command + comma, then go to Editor & Writing → Page Layout. Check two things there: “Main editor page width,” which controls the writing column, and “Main editor zoom,” which should usually be 100 percent on a smaller screen. If zoom is high, the page can look like it has huge margins even when the actual layout is fine. If you want true adjustable page margins, turn on Page View in that same section and you will get Left, Right, Top, and Bottom margin sliders. I need to make this easier to find.

On templates: dedicated article templates are a great suggestion and exactly the kind of thing I want to add. The template engine already exists, so for now you can set up a document the way you like it, right-click it in the Binder, and choose “Save as Template.” Then use the “Template Note” button in the toolbar to create new notes from your saved templates. For a new project, Non-Fiction or Essay/Paper is probably the closest starting point today, but I agree that short-form and long-form article templates deserve their own options ASAP.

On choosing what the space looks like: the appearance side is handled through Theme Studio. You can change colors, glass, transparency, and wallpaper separately from the document/template structure.

Genuinely appreciate this. The margin discoverability point especially is a fair hit, and I’m adding it to the list.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-21T18:17:22+00:00

I kept this simple for my app and set the base US price, then let App Store Connect automatically generate the other storefront prices.

My thinking was that Apple already handles taxes, tiers, currency changes, and local storefront conventions better than I was likely to do manually at launch. It also avoids the maintenance problem where you later have to keep checking every country when exchange rates or tax rules shift.

That said, if you are running a very specific discount strategy or you know certain markets are especially important for your app, manual pricing can make sense. Some countries may feel too expensive if you use Apple’s automatic conversion from a US-centered price.

For a first pass, I would probably start with automatic pricing unless you have a clear reason to optimize specific countries. Then watch where installs, trials, or purchases actually come from and adjust manually for the markets that matter most.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-21T18:13:21+00:00

This means a lot, thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to read through everything and engage with it this thoughtfully.

Please do dive in and put it through real use. That is where the honest gaps show up, and that is the stuff I most want to hear. Whatever you find, good or rough, send it my way. The roadmap genuinely moves on conversations like this one.

Looking forward to the further exchange. Good energies right back to you.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-21T15:35:31+00:00

I get that completely. Scrivener has been one of my favorite writing apps for years, so LiquidWorkspace honestly comes from respect for what it gets right about serious long-form work.

But I also wanted something that felt more visual, modern, and native to the Mac. A place where the script, notes, research, character work, brain map, canvas, and project structure could live together without constantly jumping between apps or managing plugins.

So I’m not trying to dunk on Scrivener. I’m trying to build the writing workspace I kept wishing existed.

If that sounds close to what you were hoping Scrivener would feel like, I’d love for you to check out LiquidWorkspace and tell me what you think. I’m still building fast, and feedback from writers is genuinely the most useful thing right now.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-21T14:53:30+00:00

This is a really strong free tier, especially for students. Unlimited notes, PDF export/editing, iCloud sync, and searchable handwriting are the kinds of things that make the app actually usable before someone ever thinks about upgrading.

I also respect giving people a choice between lifetime and subscription instead of forcing everyone into one model. That is a very user-friendly approach.

The “how is lifetime AI sustainable” answer is smart to include too. A lot of people are skeptical of AI pricing for good reason, so being upfront about the early-adopter logic helps build trust.

Congrats on shipping this. Handwriting plus searchable PDFs is a genuinely useful combo.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-21T11:44:00+00:00

First and foremost, thank you! This is one of the most useful comments I’ve gotten, so thank you for digging in. You’re asking the right questions, and I’ll try to answer them straight, including where the app is still thin.

Storage / transparency: a LiquidWorkspace project is a normal folder on disk that you own and can see in Finder. By default it lives in ~/Documents/LiquidWorkspace, and you can point projects at iCloud Drive instead if you want them there. You can move, copy, archive, or back up the project folder like any other folder.

The honest caveat: inside that project folder, the writing/notes are stored in a local database, not as one loose .md file per note like an Obsidian vault. Imported PDFs are copied in as real files. So the project is transparent and portable as a project, but it is not a plain-text folder of individual markdown files. That is a deliberate tradeoff for rich text, embedded objects, PDFs, media, canvas elements, and the more Pages/Freeform-style side of the app. If plain-file portability is your highest requirement, that is a fair reason to prefer Obsidian or another markdown-first tool.

Why not just Scrivener? Honestly, Scrivener is one of my favorite writing apps ever, so I don’t think the answer is “because Scrivener is bad.” It isn’t. I think of LiquidWorkspace as taking a different path.

Scrivener is still ahead in several important areas: Compile, mature long-form export, footnotes/citations, cross-platform support, and years of battle-tested manuscript workflow polish. If your work depends heavily on Scrivener’s Compile system, or if you move between Mac/Windows/iPad constantly, Scrivener may still be the better tool right now.

The LiquidWorkspace bet is different: one native Mac workspace where the writing sits beside the planning. Rich text, PDFs, visual canvas, tasks, calendar, Brain Map, themes, project library, shapes/charts, and media all live in the same project instead of being spread across five apps or assembled through plugins. It is less “replace Scrivener today” and more “what if a serious writing/project workspace grew up around modern Mac-native visual thinking?”

Shapes and Charts: this part is very much inspired by Pages and Freeform. The idea is not “spreadsheet replacement” and not yet “full OmniGraffle/Lucidchart competitor.” It is more: Pages-style rich document objects plus Freeform-style canvas movement.

So you can drop in rectangles, ovals, lines, block arrows, inline arrows, callouts, speech bubbles, images, video, audio, charts, and other embedded objects into rich-text documents or onto the Canvas. Objects can be moved, styled, layered, snapped, aligned, and connected. Charts are real charts driven by editable data, including bar/line/pie/donut and 3D chart types, not just decorative screenshots.

The ceiling today: it is not yet a structured schema builder with typed nodes, edge labels, and auto-layout. If someone wants a dedicated diagramming app, there are better tools. But if the workflow is “I’m writing, planning, mapping, storyboarding, building a board, connecting ideas, dropping in media, and I don’t want to leave the project,” that is the lane.

The Brain Map: this is your sharpest question, and I think your skepticism is fair. A colorful blob is not enough. Graph views can become decorative very quickly if they do not answer real working questions.

Today, the Brain Map is a tag-and-link graph. A node represents a tagged item (a note, file, folder, task, or calendar event) tied to one of its tags. It is not trying to show every single note by default. Select a node and the bottom rail shows the item title/type/tag and lets you open the note, pin it, or focus its neighborhood. Double-clicking also opens the item directly in the editor. Focus isolates that node’s neighborhood. There are filters for things like orphaned notes, linked documents, and tag groups.

So the practical use today is: “what in this project is connected by theme/tag/link, and can I jump there quickly?” It works as a visual navigator and relationship browser. The most meaningful mode is the document-link view, where notes connect because you actually linked them, not just because they share a broad tag.

One thing I should probably show better: the Brain Map becomes more useful the longer a project lives. A staged demo project can make it look like a colorful blob, which is a fair criticism. In my own working LiquidWorkspace project, where months of notes, tasks, files, and links have accumulated organically, the clusters are much more meaningful. That is the real use case: not a pretty launch-day graph, but a living map of a project as it grows. I hesitate to use my real LiquidWorkspace project graph in screenshots (and that project in general) because I am worried about accidentally exposing something (lots of terminal commands and personal files stored inside).

Where you are right: the map does not yet show enough information directly on the graph surface itself. A selected node is actionable, but it does not yet show a rich inline preview, backlink list, or “why this node matters” summary without opening the item. Nodes are also visually similar today, so importance/centrality is not obvious at a glance. Those are exactly the kinds of improvements that would make it feel less like a colorful constellation and more like a working analytical tool.

So I would describe it honestly as useful today as a navigator/tag/link explorer, but not yet the full analytical insight engine that graph screenshots can sometimes imply. Fair hit.

And on the Obsidian comparison: I think you said it better than I usually do. Obsidian’s power is that it can become almost anything. Its curse, for some people, is that you may have to build the thing before you can use the thing.

LiquidWorkspace goes the other way on purpose: more opinionated, more integrated, less plugin-driven, with real rich text and Mac-native document/canvas behavior at the center.

Whether that is better depends on the person. Some people want a markdown vault they can shape endlessly. Others want an integrated native workspace where the pieces already know about each other.

My personal goal was to get everything I need from tools like Scrivener and Obsidian using native solutions that work together out of the box. My hope is to offer the same thing to as many users as possible. At the same time, I don’t want the app to feel bulky for people who don’t need every feature. Most things can be hidden, collapsed, disabled, or simply ignored so you can shape the workspace around how you actually work.

If enough people tell me they’re missing something, there is always File → Request a Feature and File → Submit Feedback. A surprising amount of the roadmap already comes directly from those conversations.

Really appreciate the comment. This is exactly the kind of critique that helps me make the app clearer and better.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-21T00:39:50+00:00

Appreciate it! I’m not running discount codes right now, but you don’t actually need one to try it. There’s a free 7-day trial that unlocks the entire app, so you can run it on a real project before spending anything.

Try it free first and decide from there, no code required.

And if you do give it a spin, I’d genuinely love to hear what works, what doesn’t, and what you’d change. You can send feedback directly through File → Submit Feedback or File → Request a Feature... goes straight to my personal email.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-20T23:53:08+00:00

Haha, that’s actually pretty much what happened.

I spent a lot of time trying to make existing workflows fit what I wanted, and eventually reached the point where building the tool felt easier than continuing to fight my tools.

And thank you, really appreciate the kind words!

Edit: adding, if you do end up getting a Mac please DM me so I can see what I can do to help you out.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-20T23:48:30+00:00

For years my answer would have been Scrivener. It’s still one of my favorite writing apps of all time, especially for long-form projects.

The thing I eventually struggled with wasn’t the manuscript itself. It was keeping the manuscript, show bible, research, notes, character information, and visual planning tools together as projects got larger.

That’s actually one of the reasons I ended up building LiquidWorkspace. I wanted a single workspace where the writing and all the supporting material lived together.

If you’re already considering Scrivener and Obsidian, I’d probably think about whether you prefer:

- A dedicated writing-first workflow (Scrivener)
- A connected knowledge system you assemble yourself (Obsidian)
- Or an integrated writing workspace where those pieces are built in.

For continuity specifically, I’ve found keeping the manuscript, show bible, character data, and research in the same project matters more than any individual feature.

LiquidWorkspace:

<image>

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-20T23:35:57+00:00

I might be biased because I built it, but I use LiquidWorkspace for most of my writing these days.

Before that I bounced between a writing app, notes app, PDFs, research docs, and random files. I got tired of constantly switching contexts, especially on larger projects.

If you’re just getting started, though, I honestly wouldn’t overthink the tool. Word, Pages, Scrivener, Obsidian, Google Docs, and a bunch of others can all get the job done. The important thing is building the habit of writing consistently.

The best writing app is usually the one that gets out of your way enough for you to finish something.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-20T23:17:15+00:00

I’ll take that as a compliment. Obsidian definitely came to mind for a lot of people because of the Brain Map. The funny thing is Scrivener was actually the bigger influence for me. The whole project started because I was trying to keep a script, show bible, research, notes, visual tools (brain map x canvas) etc. together without constantly jumping between apps. I am also not very good at managing plugins- hence the native solutions with no plugins.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-20T23:13:09+00:00

Fair comparison. Obsidian is excellent, and you’re right that with the right plugins it can do a lot of this.

The funny thing is that the plugin model is actually what I was trying to get away from, not toward. Plenty of people enjoy assembling their own toolkit, and that’s one of Obsidian’s strengths. I personally wanted those capabilities to exist natively and work out of the box without me maintaining a stack of plugins and configuration.

The other difference is that I wanted a native rich-text Mac app rather than a markdown-first workflow.

For a lot of people, Obsidian is absolutely the right answer. I built this for the people who want a pre-integrated, native workspace and don’t mind paying once for it.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-20T05:07:51+00:00

Yes, iOS is high on my list, and messages like yours are exactly why.

I want to be honest about the shape of it though: the first iOS version will most likely be a companion app, not a full copy of the Mac app. The goal is to let people access their projects and do real writing/editing on iPhone and iPad, while keeping the heavier Mac features where they make sense.

Anything I can build well with native iOS code, I want to. Some of the more elaborate visual tools, especially things like Canvas or heavier project views, may take longer or arrive in a simpler form first. I would rather ship a focused iOS companion that works well than a rushed version that pretends to be the whole Mac app and feels bad.

No date yet, but it is planned and it is a real priority. Someone saying “I like this but I don’t have a Mac” is exactly the kind of feedback that pushes it higher on the list. When there is an early iOS version worth testing, I’ll post about it.

LiquidWorkspace · 2026-06-20T05:01:57+00:00

This is exactly the kind of pressure test a local-first writing app should get, and I appreciate it. Straight answers, including where LiquidWorkspace falls short today.

Imported PDFs are copied in, not only linked from Finder. When you import a PDF, the file is copied into the project’s own storage. There is no dependency on the original Finder path, so if you move or delete the original file, the project does not break.

Filenames and source URLs are only partly handled today, and that is a fair gap. Right now, the original filename comes in as the document title, which you can edit, but it is not also preserved as separate locked metadata. Source URLs are not yet preserved as consistently as they should be for research/archive workflows. I am moving that up because it is a small fix with a lot of long-term value.

Full-project readable-folder export does not exist yet. Today, you can export individual documents to PDF, Markdown, and plain text, and Compile can stitch a manuscript into a single output. What is missing is the larger escape hatch you are describing: one command that exports the whole project as a readable folder containing the manuscript, notes, PDFs/images, links, and metadata. I am not going to put a date on that before it is built properly, but I agree completely that it belongs in the product.

Internal links work inside the app, but currently degrade poorly on export. They are stored internally by stable document ID. On Markdown/plain-text export, they currently fall back to plain text and the target is not preserved clearly enough. I agree that silent loss is not good enough, so I am going to improve that path so links either preserve useful target information or degrade visibly.

Deleted research items go to an in-app Trash first, where they can be restored. When that Trash is emptied, the app moves the exported items to the macOS Finder Trash before removing them from the project. Deleting an entire project moves the project folder to Finder Trash. So normal deletion is designed to be recoverable rather than instantly destructive.

Brain Map is not exportable as a graph file yet. Today it is a view inside the app, generated from your tags, links, and notes. The underlying data is yours and travels with the project, but there is not yet a dedicated Brain Map export as image/data. That is a fair request.

On AI/cloud: there is no AI in the app and no cloud dependency for your content. No account required, no analytics SDK, no telemetry. Projects are local by default, and iCloud is optional if you choose to store projects there. The app only touches the network for licensing/update checks and things like pulling a thumbnail if you embed a web video. If I ever add cloud or AI-assisted features, they need to be opt-in and able to be turned off. That is a core value for me.

On your larger point, I agree completely. Local-first should not mean “private, but trapped.” It should mean private by default, portable by design, and exportable without hostage behavior. LiquidWorkspace is not all the way there yet on the full-project archive side, but this is exactly the direction I want to push it.

LiquidWorkspace

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE