MIKILC  This would probably be the best dedicated writer's tool out there except for one fatal flaw: it isn't WYSIWYG. What appeals about the programme is its project-based approach, with its ability to hold different documents together in the project and notes tied to the document. But the idea not to use standard rich text editing but tagged styles which then translate into appropriate formatting when exported is a bore. All those inserted tags and highlights actually interrupt one's reading over the text, whereas experienced writers (this one has several books and numerous articles to his credit, as well as innumerable documents for students etc.) have long learned to use formatting and layout properly as they write (like italicising titles of books or films, or making indented lists) which cannot be done effectively here. I suspect this is aimed at would-be writers, not real ones. Would be nice if the authors produced a rich text version of the programme - they might call it 'Dubliners' (or even 'Finnegans Wake').  
(Version 2.0.3)

STEVEN GOODHEART  As a writer/editor, I can definitely see the appeal of this program. It does have a lot of editing/text manipulation horsepower. And yet, as I tried it out, I had this weird sense that I was suddenly back using WordStar on my first computer, a CP/M machine. I used WordStar and WordPerfect extensively, "back in the day" and knew by heart almost all of the embedded codes for formatting text. Then, WYSIWYG word processors began to make their debut, and it seemed like magic to see your actual formatting onscreen, rather than having to imagine what it would look like, until you printed, or did a formatting preview. After a while, embedded codes seemed so old-school and cumbersome to many people.

And now, 2009, 21st century, here comes Ulysses, with (very powerful) embedded codes and a WordStar-like embedded code paradigm! Of course, Ulysses is way more sophisticated, in many ways, than good ol' Wordstar, but I find it fascinating to see the power of embedded codes presented as way to do day-to-day editing, and not just layout, like LaTeX or the like.

I can definitely see how I could use the Ulysses approach as a way to get WYSIWYG out of the way, and endless tinkering with layout and format, and to really zero in on text creation and content. Of course, one can do this, with discipline, in a any good writing program, and one has to note that Ulysses also offers many, many other way-cool and data-base like features for keeping track of research and notes. I don't know if this has enough to move me away from Scrivenir or StoryMill, but it's definitely piqued my interest.  
(Version 2.0.1)

CHANGEWK  Hmmm. Half the price of what it used to be plus an interesting new feature set plus their website advertising is no longer arrogant. Finally got my interest.  
(Version 2.0)

LEV  It would be nice if everything were free. And a Lexus is really just a souped-up Suzuki Swift...

Actually I don't think putting Scrivener and Ulysses head to head is quite right. I've used both since they first appeared and I still use both. Scrivener is a brilliant free-form organizer with some very sophisticated writing tools; Ulysses encourages a more disciplined approach. To be glib, Scrivener is for feeling your way forward, Ulysses is for managing a writing project when you already know more or less where you're going.

Given that Ulysses is developed by (I believe) working journalists and Scrivener by a chap who wanted to write a novel and couldn't find the right app to do it in, it's curious that, for me at least, Scrivener turns out to be ideal for non-fiction while Ulysses is rather better-suited to the total immersion required for writing fiction. (Others may disagree, of course.)

Put even more simply, I find Scrivener encourages a smaller granularity that Ulysses. Scrivener's natural unit is a scene at a time; Ulysses', a chapter at a time. Depends what you're doing and how you like to write.

As to price -- well, if you write in order to put bread on the table, the cost of either is small beer compared with the benefits they deliver.

Try them both. You might end up buying them both. How many tools does a carpenter have in his toolbox?  
(Version 1.6r2)

LAWRENCE GOODMAN  I want to add my voice to those who think this app is outrageously priced. It does have some nice features, but it’s essentially a souped-up text editor. Many of its features can be found in Textmate while Scrivener, in fact, has many more features and is far cheaper.

I really hope the developers will listen and lower the proce.  
(Version 1.6r2)

KATASTROPHE  When I first bought Ulysses in (I think) 2003, I didn't balk at the price because there was simply nothing out there doing the job. The closest thing -- a program called Z-Write -- was on its way to becoming abandonware and had stability issues, and of the small number of other programs I found that let me do tabbed documents, all were simplistic to the point of irritating, buggy, or top-loading the program with useless (buggy) features in an attempt to make it more like Word, the program I was trying to get away from in the first place.

Scrivener and other newcomers have certainly changed the playing field, but I do think some of the comments here overly harsh. Is Ulysses high-priced compared to other programs? Yes. Is it the program for you? It may well not be; certainly check out the cheaper options first. But the beauty of Ulysses is not only what it does but what it doesn't do. It doesn't distract you, and yet it does deliver pretty much every feature I actually need, neatly, quietly, and in such a manner that the features are immediately accessible when I look and completely invisible when I don't. That's rare. And, for me, it's worth every penny.

I also want to note that the price on this listing is somewhat misleading. The actual price of Ulysses is (at the moment) eighty Euro, meaning its US dollar price varies depending on the strength of the Euro. Right now it's running about $100, a quarter less than the listing price.  
(Version 1.6r2)

JONATHAN GOLDEN  Much, much to expensive for what it does.   
(Version 1.6r2)

LORD LIGHTNING  Don't know what version of Scrivener Talazem was evaluating - but v 1.12b does Markup perfectly. So still no contest and a spurious and flawed comparison.

Don't get me wrong, Ulysses is fine for what it is, it is just that Scrivener is a direct competitor and it is streets better for writers - and the developer really does listen, seriously listen. Maybe that's part of why Scrivener is so superior. Version 2 is scheduled to appear in September so I strongly suggest that you download v1.12b and become familiar with it. At least look at the forum: http://www.literatureandlatte.com/forum/

and at the video on the FEATURES section of the Scrivener splash page: http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.html  
(Version 1.6)

TALAZEM  This is an wonderful program for what it claims to do: plain text writing. But it really shines when one uses it in conjunction with LaTeX and other markup based writing. Why? Because the new features of 1.5 -- like inline style formatting and markers that can be set to export as markup -- can be be set to export as markup. This is excellent for people who like to export ultimately to LaTeX, with all the necessary markup, but do not want to *see* that markup on the screen as they write. This is a *huge* step in LaTeX editing/writing.

So, for example, you can apply styles to text -- for example, a yellow highlight, or the color red. That's what you see on your screen. Then, upon exoprt, you can have that be transformed to something else, such as LaTeX escapes.

Again, this isn't for people who just want to "type up some notes"; go use TextEdit for that. Don't care about plain text or LaTeX, and need RTF? Then Scrivener is the best of the breed (though, it must be said, that Scrivener also has an *awesome* LaTeX export mechanism due to its MMD integration).

The major weakness of Ulsses? The organizer. I understand they have their own philosophy, but ultimately, if I want to export into something PRINTABLE (as opposed to hypertext), then I need an outliner, a folder-type hierarchy. Why? Because that's how books and book-length documents (like theses) are organized. As it stands, Ulysses effectively has a two-level deep hierarchy. When I'm writing a book, or a thesis, that just isn't enough. Long printed publications are hierarchically based; that's reality. And I need a program that allows me to use that intuitive form of organization, and to move parts of the document around that hierarchy on the fly. It's just too hard to keep track of parts, chapters, sections, and subsections of a thesis or a book without as it stands now.

So -- since other have (unfairly) attacked Ulysses and praised the "competition -- let's be fair, and compare them based on relative *merits*: where do each of Ulysses and Scrivener shine (only focusing on strengths not existant in the other; not commenting on "writing software" features they both have)?

Scrivener: it has a database (to store your research files such as other RTFs, web pages, pdfs, etc, that you can then view within the prgoram); it is an RTF editor (if that's what you need); it has an excellent hierarchical organizer and outliner; it has excellent export abilities through MMD.

Ulysses: the ability to apply inline styles or markers that can then be translated into markup upon export is revolutionary, especially for LaTeX users; it is plain text (if that's what you need); you can choose to have inline footnotes, or footnotes in the notes pane; it is one of the most aesthetically pleasant pieces of software I have seen (not that Scrivener is ugly, and this is a subject thing, yes).

If the devs are listening, please put a hierarchical organizer (outliner) at the top of your developing priorities. That is the only thing necessary to make your excellent program perfect for people with plain text/LaTeX needs.

And if you're a user: please don't flame an apple for not being an orange (and mind you, neither are lemons).  
(Version 1.5)

ZO219  If anyone who wishes to write spends this kind of money on ... software that touts, on its feature list, Tabs! and, Automatically Updates! ... I will personally come over to your house and whap you upside the head ... One rarely sees such overblown - oh dear, another bad word occurs to me. To all newcomers to the Mac, welcome, this isn't typical at all. Just write.  
(Version 1.5)