In addition to what @ccc and @jonmoore said, Pythonista is actually more successful commercially than Editorial (currently about 2x-3x). Of course, part of that may be due to Editorial not being optimized for iOS 7 yet etc., but I still think Pythonista can appeal to a lot of people with a Python background that I couldn't easily reach with Editorial. While there's a lot of shared functionality, the focus of the apps is just very different, and I'd guess that a lot of folks find Pythonista just by searching for "Python" in the App Store.
I'd say the reason that Pythonista is far more popular than Editorial is quite simple from a marketing perspective, Pythonista has a clear & defined audience whereas the audience for Editorial is nebulous and undefined by it's very nature. You only have to look at Brett Terpstra's database of text editors to see how cluttered the playing field is. The audience for Editorial is restricted to those who are already comfortable with the like of Automator/Alfred/Applescript etc, which outside of our nerdy little world is a tiny percentage of OS X users, nevermind IOS users, the good majority of which wouldn't know what a line of code looks like let alone have the ability (or more importantly - need) to write code.
I think it would be smart to ship the next update of Editorial with a bunch the best workflows that the community have thus far created so as to soft sell the benefits of creating workflows. When the likes of Katie Floyd of Mac Power Users freely admits she can't get her head around the benefits of Editorial it's saying something.
I'm not saying that the next version should change focus, I love it just the way it is; and the glimpses of the future you've shown us look very promising indeed. However at a fundamental level Editorial is still a writing tool, not a programming tool so I feel you need to somehow 'prove' the benefits of automation workflows (through the aforementioned pre-installed workflows) to new users otherwise they're going to wonder what all the fuss is about. Just because you include marvelously written documentation built into the app explaining both the benefits and how to create workflows doesn't mean that new customers will explore that documentation if they don't get the benefits in the first place.
In reality Pythonista has a massive audience of programmers and the likes of Byword/1Writer/Phraseology etc have a massive audience of bloggers and now that IOS7 handles inter app rich text formatting, the biggest audience of all - general writers, are well served by non Markdown based word processing apps such as IOS Word (Office 365) and Pages. Editorial has huge benefits over any other Markdown based text editor available on IOS, it's just that the audience of people willing to write/install individual workflows that provide all that extra firepower is unfortunately limited. The other thing that new users of Editorial don't understand, is the lack of system wide utility functions such as 'open in', pasteboard functionality and suchlike. The workflow system obviously allows you to 'roll your own' system utility functions specific to your own needs but new users don't understand that.
On the surface of things you'd expect Editorial with it's Automator like workflow approach to scripting to have a greater potential customer base than Pythonista but once you analyse audience attitudes and needs I'd surmise that the opposite is true.
None of what I've written here is intended as criticism. Editorial is the most used application on any of my IOS devices and further than that I'd love to see a version on OS X! I just feel that more work is needed for it to cross over into the wider audience (and sales) it so richly deserves.