BusyMac Previews BusySync 2 iCal Syncing Software

[MacRumors]

In one of the many booths of South Hall 1338, BusyMac was busily showing off brand new features to its prime product, BusySync.

BusySync is a preference pane that allows you to synchronize iCal calendars across multiple computers without the need for a .Mac subscription. It utilizes many core Mac OS X technologies such as SyncServices, CoreData, and Bonjour, and the result is a pretty slick alternative for those who use .Mac primarily for its calendar synchronization capabilities.

BusySync uses peer to peer calendar sharing rather than .Mac's client-server model. In the preference pane, you can select which of your calendars you would like to share, and then select what permissions you'd like others to have (read, read/write, administrative, etc). It will automatically discover shared calendars over local Bonjour networks and automatically synchronize updates as they are made. However, users not daunted by port forwarding can also make their calendars accessible via the internet for sharing. SSL encryption is available (and advisable) to users of Mac OS 10.5 Leopard.

BusySync 2 adds Google Calendar synchronization support. In a demo, John Chaffee of BusyMac demonstrated how a change on Google Calendar was quickly reflected on each of his iCal calendars on his two notebooks in his booth, and vise-versa. He also mentions that Google Calendar support will also be useful to mobile users who want to have a read/write copy available on the internet, something that .Mac does not currently support.

BusySync 1.5 is available for $20 per computer, though discounts are available for multiple users. BusySync 2, when it comes out, will be $25, however if you buy BusySync 1.5 now, you will be eligible for a free upgrade. A time-limited demo version is also available via BusyMac's website.





Article Link

[Tom J]

Great software that fills a much needed niche but the minimum cost now becomes $50 when syncing two Mac's. The four Mac's (mine, wife's and 2 kids) in my house would be $100. That's just too much for for what it is.

[longofest]

Originally Posted by Tom J

Great software that fills a much needed niche but the minimum cost now becomes $50 when syncing two Mac's. The four Mac's (mine, wife's and 2 kids) in my house would be $100. That's just too much for for what it is.

I kind of thought the price was a little high as well, but it isn't subscription pricing like .Mac is, so it's only one-time.

Still, it's not for everyone. If you like the other services of .Mac like I do, then I'd go for .Mac over this. However when .Mac first came out, I know the syncing feature was really the main feature that I liked, and I would have loved to know about this. If someone is still in this boat, this software very much may be for them.

[phytonix]

Originally Posted by longofest

I kind of thought the price was a little high as well, but it isn't subscription pricing like .Mac is, so it's only one-time.

Still, it's not for everyone. If you like the other services of .Mac like I do, then I'd go for .Mac over this. However when .Mac first came out, I know the syncing feature was really the main feature that I liked, and I would have loved to know about this. If someone is still in this boat, this software very much may be for them.

It is hardly one-time. When Apple upgdate iCal or OS X, it may be broken. And may only be fixed in the latest version of this software. Then you have to buy again.

[Tom J]

Originally Posted by phytonix

It is hardly one-time. When Apple upgdate iCal or OS X, it may be broken. And may only be fixed in the latest version of this software. Then you have to buy again.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

[longofest]

BusySync has received a Best of Show award.

[wordmunger]

Wow, this might just eliminate the last reason I had for using .mac.

Since Time machine doesn't back up iDisk files, iDisk is becoming less of a feature than a burden.

I might have to try this out.

[Le Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Tom J

Great software that fills a much needed niche but the minimum cost now becomes $50 when syncing two Mac's. The four Mac's (mine, wife's and 2 kids) in my house would be $100. That's just too much for for what it is.

1) Looks like a great product if it does what it claims.

2) But the pricing quickly gets outrageous. It's $50 just to begin, because who would sync only 1 computer?

3) Why doesn't apple include this functionality as part of iCal? yeah, I know it would take money from .mac, but come on--there are free alternatives to .mac for calendar syncing anyway.

[wordmunger]

Originally Posted by Le Big Mac

1) Looks like a great product if it does what it claims.

2) But the pricing quickly gets outrageous. It's $50 just to begin, because who would sync only 1 computer?

I agree -- the more I think about it, the more I'm unsure I really want to plunge what would be $125 for my household. They ought to consider a "family pack" for $40 or so, similar to Apple's pricing plans.

[Droidworx]

BusySync 1.5 is available for $20 per computer, though discounts are available for multiple users. BusySync 2, when it comes out, will be $25, however if you buy BusySync 1.5 now, you will be eligible for a free upgrade. A time-limited demo version is also available via BusyMac's website.


This was taken from their website, not the best but a little better. 5 computers = 90.00 plus tax...

BusySync requires a separate license for each computer on your network. Multi-unit discounts are applied automatically during checkout:
5+ computers = 10% discount
10+ computers = 20% discount
25+ computers = 30% discount

[Le Big Mac]

Originally Posted by wordmunger

I agree -- the more I think about it, the more I'm unsure I really want to plunge what would be $125 for my household. They ought to consider a "family pack" for $40 or so, similar to Apple's pricing plans.

Yep--$40 for up to 5 macs on the same LAN (and then, say $5 for each additional) would be much closer to reasonable.

I figure, though, that they may get bought out and integrated into OS X 10.6. And if their price isn't right apple will flip a switch that allows sharing of this sort.

[Tom J]

Originally Posted by Le Big Mac

Yep--$40 for up to 5 macs on the same LAN (and then, say $5 for each additional) would be much closer to reasonable.

I figure, though, that they may get bought out and integrated into OS X 10.6. And if their price isn't right apple will flip a switch that allows sharing of this sort.

YES! I agree on both counts.
1) Reasonable Family Pack pricing. $40 for up to 5 macs on the same LAN.
2) I was very surprised when I originally found out that iCal doesn't have built-in syncing. Seemed like a no-brainer to include that. And now with Time Capsule's shared drive and whole house backup strategy, I'll be stupified if Apple doesn't address this exact issue within the next year. Somewhere within Apple is incomplete iCal syncing software that didn't make Leopard's final cut.

[mcmav37]

I too was very interested in this until I saw the price. Anyone seen this option: Spanning Sync http://www.spanningsync.com ?

Seems like it should do the exact same thing, but would be cheaper, especially if you have more than 2 computers. I just can't decide if I would want to buy the permanent license with the thought that this feature may soon be incorporated into OS X.

Also, the more I think about it, I'm not sure how often I will really need to edit my calendar from google. It seems the google part would be nice to be able to reference at work or on the go, but in the rare occasions where I don't have my palm (which is synced to iCal at home) I could just send myself a reminder email to input/change an event on iCal when I do get home. So, using an automatic iCal upload to something like iCal exchange and then subscribing to that from google would seem to be a completely free alternative with minimal downside.

Any thoughts?