Comments on: Why is Spanning Sync a Service?

By: Spanning Sync Impressions | alexking.org

Spanning Sync Impressions | alexking.org — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:48:41 +0000

[...] was initially critical of Spanning Sync1. I still think this would be better as an application than a service, but [...]

By: Jim Fuller

Jim Fuller — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:23:33 +0000

gSync is a small utility that does sync without any 3rd party in between…and oonce we are out of beta (soon….few weeks) it will be a one off utility bit of software price.

also since we have integrated Apple’s own SyncServices we have a clear integration path to other sync processes…gives us lots of opps for neat functionality.

http://www.macness.com

cheers, Jim Fuller

By: Charlie Wood

Charlie Wood — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:27:10 +0000

I’ve posted a more detailed discussion of this issue here:

http://groups.google[...]7d7d7010acc4

and added a link to our FAQ at

http://spanningsync.com/faq

Regards,
Charlie
spanningsync.com

By: Charlie Wood

Charlie Wood — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:32:26 +0000

Alex,

The decision to make our sync engine server-based certainly puts a heavier burden on our shoulders. We have to make sure the service scales, and is available, and is secure. But it also opens up an array of possibilities for providing sync services between other hosted services–think Salesforce.com and Google Calendar–that simply wouldn’t be possible if we built the engine into any one client platform.

You’re right–sync is hard, and building scalable web services is hard. But we’re not afraid of hard work, and we think the end result is going to be very valuable to a lot of people.

Regards,
Charlie
spanningsync.com

By: Chris Kacerguis

Chris Kacerguis — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:03:46 +0000

..and to make matters worse, I found this wonderful feature, which is why I highly advise against:

http://www.faithstor[...]anning-sync/

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 05:13:20 +0000

A friend postulated that perhaps they were doing this to keep a consistent revenue stream instead of just one-off purchases. That could be, but the trade-off is huge.

Besides, sync is hard. Scaling a web service is hard. Doing both at once… not something I’d want to be responsible for.

By: motherduce

motherduce — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:16:44 +0000

I’m with you here Alex. I was really intrigued by, and watched closely, the development of SS. Unfortunately it is looking more and more like something I don’t want to use. It’s a great idea though, and I still don’t get why we haven’t seen an iCal plugin to sync with GCal. Heck, Flickr and Picasa both have plugins for iPhoto exporting…

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:40:06 +0000

I was one of the “few” that got through yesterday and it works extremely well. My problem, the fact that they now have my google username and password. It’s makes my stomach turn. Just another reason for it to be a client side app rather then a service oriented spp that could potentially be a harvester.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:06:15 +0000

I agree, I too would rather have a utility, not a service. It makes more sense. I haven’t been following the project, but when I read about it being public I hoped on it. I was shocked that they would haver server issues and I had no clue it was to be a “service.”

Beyond the fact that it doesn’t seem necessary, there’s something that doesn’t seem right about a “for-profit” business plan built around a free service (GCal).

By: Matt Hite

Matt Hite — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:46:00 +0000

Yeah, you’re right. It’s a good idea gone bad.

By: Joseph Scott

Joseph Scott — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:28:58 +0000

I agree, I’d prefer to a have utility on my own system that took care of the syncing for me.