> A "lifetime" option only highlights the fact that the lifetime for this software will be short.

I bought a "lifetime" upgrade for UltraEdit when it was at version 8 or so. It's now on version 13?

"Lifetime" as an option usually exists for people who get in on the ground floor of something. It sometimes goes away after the product becomes stable (talk to SnapperMail users on Treo devices about that one).

$25/year or $65 forever. Basically the question is: "Do you think you will use this for 2 years?"


> Apple, Google, etc. will work out the sync issues in the next year or so.

Hrm. Well, let's see, Apple sells .Mac for $100/year. So there motivation for getting iCal to GCal syncing is negative ($100 * dot-Mac Subscribers) + ($100 * potential dot-Mac Subscribers).

For those of you not good with math: the answer ain't gonna come from Apple.

For Google: they aren't selling anything like dot-Mac, but they also don't have to provide end user support for a syncing program.


> The existing Google option to subscribe to an iCal URL ("Add by URL"), and for iCal to
> subscribe to a Google calendar, come tantalizingly close to doing the basic job for free.

Yes, just about as well as the option to ride by bike for free comes tantalizingly close to freeing me from the need for a car.

As long as I don't need to get to the airport. Or visit relatives.

Or travel in rain.

Or haul anything heavy.

Or travel with passengers.

Or go grocery shopping for more than one basketful of stuff.

And time is not an issue.

Yes, you can put your iCal online somewhere and subscribe to it via Google Calendar. Read only.

Yes, you can get read-only access to your Google Calendar in iCal.

That is really good enough for Google. If you want to add something to your Google calendar, however, you'll need to be online, or send them an SMS.

Is Google going to come up with a solution for two-way sync between desktop clients and its calendar?

No.

Why?

Because if they did, they'd have to support it. And supporting it means dealing with all the oddities of people's computers, and Google wants no part of that. They will provide APIs for others to walk that road.

So if you're waiting for Apple or Google to give you a two-way read/write access to your calendar, you'd best be very patient.

If you're willing to put up with some read-only, not in sync, "requires-manual intervention" kludgery, then yes, you can do it for free.

If, however, what you want is something approaching that "Just Works" mentality that a lot of us bought a Mac for, and if you're looking at $100/year dot-Mac and realizing that what you really want is your calendar anywhere, and being able to share it with people on various levels of access, and to be able to know that wherever you access it you will have the same information available, then you want SpanningSync.

The program is not perfect. Google is continuing to keep its products in "Open, Seemingly Stale, Close-but-not-Quite" Beta for a long time, and GCal is no exception, so there are times when there are problems.

The price isn't cheap, but is it worth $2/month? To me it is. Actually I went ahead and bought the $65 version.

The SS folks are very responsive and do their best to help folks. That's the big difference to me, is that it isn't $25 that you plop down for a piece of software. Call the software $10 and the annual support $15. You're going to get direct access to the developers, who answer email promptly, who maintain an active Google Group for the program, and who are developing like crazy to keep on top of GCal developments, changes, bugs, etc.

Compare that with a "free" program which may break down, may get dropped when its developer no longer needs the program ("Back to paper!"), or when s/he gets hired by a company to work on a project which actually helps pay the rent.

Two-way sync between databases is a tricky business. You want someone who is committed to making it work. That's why I bought SpanningSync.