BusyCal 2.0 and synching to iPhone; iPad; etc.

[Sebastian Tombs]

I am using Snow Leopard so far, and I have a copy of BusyCal 1.6 on
board the Mac. I got an email from BusyCal telling me that I can buy a
copy of the 2.0, but it looks like I am not going to touch that with a
10 foot pole. First off, I don't think it works on a previous MacOS;
secondly they do state that it will not allow you to synch from the
BusyCal to an iPhone - or, it seems, any other smart phone.

They are saying that Apple has abandoned the capability to synch
directly to the device in Mountain Lion, and you MUST use iCloud to
synch to a hand held device. Which distresses me, as I have already
walked away from iCloud within the past 2 months, because it doesn't
move ALL the data I think it should...

So what? Am I reading too much into this? Does anyone else know what
BusyCal is talking about? Is this functionality going to disappear, or
is it just something that Apple is doing to their "competitors" to make
life more fun for them?

S.

[Steve Hodgson]

I must admit I thought long and hard about this 'upgrade' before I went
for it. I use BusyCal to sync dates, via Google, to a school calendar
on a website and I thought that changes to Google syncing were going to
take this functionality away. In the end things worked fine (with some
changes) and I feel more comfortable on the supported 2.x path.

They *have* taken away a lot of the functionality from the earlier
version so I don't consider this a better product, just better
supported. I suspect that pressure and reviews such as those on
MacUpdate may focus BusyMac's minds somewhat in the long-term. At the
end of the day a move to using Apples 'core' technologies may mean that
these original features never come back.

My advice would be to stick with 1.x as long as possible if it still
works for you.
--
Cheers,

Steve

[Simo...@canada.com]

In article <vilain-EC3753....@news.individual.net>,
Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <Simon52-725BC5...@news.newsgroupdirect.com>,

> BusyCal has taken the Dark Side(tm) by using only stuff that the Apple
> MotherShip supports. So, iCloud synch only. And no Exchange (for those
> that use Microsoft Exchange Calendaring, this is a total non-starter).
> MacOS 10.8's iCal now has Google Calendar integration, so I'll switch to
> that when BusyCal dies.
>
> The Google Calendar integration was why I spent $49 3 months ago for
> BusyCal. Now they want $29.99 for an upgrade that doesn't support what
> the original software does. And it will go up to full price of $49.99
> after 31 Dec if I decline to upgrade.
>
> These developers either have drunk the Coolaid or the company's been
> bought out by it's VCs and they're trying to capitalize on the current
> product before shutting down the company, or the CTO had a psychotic
> break with reality. In any case, the reviews for 2.0 have been
> universally panned on MacUpdate. I have no plans to upgrade BusyCal now
> or ever based on the current 'upgrade'.
>
> Someone needs to blog about this company and tell them to get their
> heads out of their ass and think of the existing customer base rather
> than throwing it under the bus. Or maybe we should just let this
> company die.
>
> http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/31936/busycal

Well, it is wisely written that you can't legislate brains. You also
cannot force someone to make money. Let 'em die, and if there appears
to be a market, someone else will step in to take over.

So the BusyCal seems to be only BusyCal? So that no synch from Mac to
PDA is not an AppleCorporate Direction? I sincerely hope.

S.

[Bread]

On 2012-10-24 17:19:57 +0000, Sebastian Tombs said:

> I am using Snow Leopard so far, and I have a copy of BusyCal 1.6 on
> board the Mac. I got an email from BusyCal telling me that I can buy a
> copy of the 2.0, but it looks like I am not going to touch that with a
> 10 foot pole. First off, I don't think it works on a previous MacOS;

Correct.

> secondly they do state that it will not allow you to synch from the
> BusyCal to an iPhone - or, it seems, any other smart phone.

AFAIK, Busycal never synced directly to the iPhone or iOS device. It synced to
Apple's iCal calender file on your computer and you may or may not have
been syncing *that* via iTunes (or otherwise) to your iOS device.

>
> They are saying that Apple has abandoned the capability to synch
> directly to the device in Mountain Lion, and you MUST use iCloud to
> synch to a hand held device.

iOS devices may still sync to your computer's Calendar via iTunes.

It just appears that Busycal may no longer sync to the local calendar
on your mac (which used to be accessed via iCal).

Busycal seems to be recommending using iCloud or Google Calendar.

> Which distresses me, as I have already
> walked away from iCloud within the past 2 months, because it doesn't
> move ALL the data I think it should...

What's it missing? Calendar syncing is through a standardized protocol.

I wasn't thrilled with discontinuation of MobileMe, since I had a
machine which couldn't be upgraded past 10.6, but I've not had any
problems so far with iCloud.

OTOH, I'm not sure I see a point in paying for the BusyCal 2.0 upgrade.
I am using the latest 1.x release and am quite happy with it.

The TidBits guys wrote a nice review of BusyCal 2.0 (and reading it now
makes me think maybe it'll be worth upgrading). And they have a free
e-book about calendars and calendar syncing. Link is in the Tidbits
article:

http://tidbits.com/article/13355

> So what? Am I reading too much into this? Does anyone else know what
> BusyCal is talking about? Is this functionality going to disappear, or
> is it just something that Apple is doing to their "competitors" to make
> life more fun for them?

I think you're reading too much "doing to" into this. They aren't
doing this to anyone. They are simply doing it. Busycal got rid of
some inherently unstable things (calendar republishing) and Apple got
rid of Sync Services (which means, of course, that Busycal loses the
things that came with that). If these changes are part of making the
system more stable, or expanding the use of standardized protocols
(CalDAV instead of Apple's sync services), I see no conspiracy here but
just simplification and stability improvements, even if there are
sometimes some downsides to getting rid of outdated techniques or
systems.