We've mentioned
Spanning Sync, the first utility to truly sync iCal and Google Calendar,
once or twice before, but until today it's been in that 'beta' status that's such a hit with the kids these days. As of this morning, however, beta is no more, for Spanning Sync has reached full 1.0 status and gone commercial. Now, users can bask in the wonders of a true two-way sync between iCal and Google Calendar, as well as syncing between multiple Macs and Google Calendar accounts, and even with iSync-compatible devices like iPods and mobile phones (before you ask: yes, once it's out, the iPhone is invited to the party too). Spanning Sync even works with
Google Apps for Your Domain, Google's hosting service (free to individuals or companies of up to 25 users, commercial for more) that offers, amongst other things, Google Calendar and Gmail on your own domain.
With the changeover to a full 1.0 app, Spanning Sync has also gone commercial. It now runs as a 15 day demo, and that two-tier pricing system
we mentioned offers two choices: either $25 for a yearly subscription (a lá .Mac), or $65 to buy a copy in full.
Check out the refreshed
Spanning Sync site for more details and to download a demo.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Angela said 9:41AM on 3-13-2007
Having used it in beta for quite a while, honestly I can't say this application is worth the $$ they are asking for it. I am going to try some other apps which do a similar operation, first. I don't see how they can justify anymore than $25 for a one time purchase.
Reply
Chris said 9:59AM on 3-13-2007
$65 is out of control.
Reply
thirstyrobot said 9:59AM on 3-13-2007
Those prices are outrageous. And I say so as a beta tester. I'll discontinue using this app until the developer comes to his senses.
Reply
Nate said 10:07AM on 3-13-2007
Rivaling the price of iWork, iLife, and half the price of an entire OSX operating system?
Absolutely not. I don't care how bad I want this functionality, this is out of control. Especially not with all the error messages that always come up on my wife's computer for this app.
Reply
John said 10:13AM on 3-13-2007
That is ridiculous, the pricing is crazy.
Reply
Ben said 10:25AM on 3-13-2007
I agree with all of the above. $65 is ridiculously overpriced and who wants to pay a yearly fee on something like this? BS.
Reply
Rae said 10:22AM on 3-13-2007
In accord with all of the above comments. I wonder how long we'll be able to suckle on the beta teat until we're cut off.
Reply
Sean said 10:21AM on 3-13-2007
Agreed. This price scale is shocking!
$25 is the highest reasonable price I'm willing to pay.
Reply
Ben said 10:26AM on 3-13-2007
I'd like to add that I never liked the fact that my Gmail username and password must pass through SpanningSync's servers every time. I just don't trust anyone with that information except Google.
Reply
Dave said 10:29AM on 3-13-2007
I've already removed the application. It doesn't do enough to justify that pricing structure.
Reply
Chris said 10:30AM on 3-13-2007
I'd rather pay the yearly .Mac fee and sync my iCal with that calendar. I think that even $25 is too high. Hit me up when it's under $10.
Reply
Erik said 10:33AM on 3-13-2007
Wow - what a terrible pricing decision. Unless they're hoping to cash in on the market before Google bakes this in or someone comes along and does it better. Ofcourse, with that pricing the motivation for competition is going to be high.
Reply
chad said 10:37AM on 3-13-2007
Agreed that $65 is WAY too much. Looks like they just lost another user here.
Plus, it would be nice of them to offer a discount to the beta users that have been putting up with all the headaches and growing pains.
Reply
Quix said 10:39AM on 3-13-2007
I've never thought anything could make .Mac look like a great deal, but Spanning Sync has managed to do it. Good job guys!
Reply
dburney said 10:43AM on 3-13-2007
This sounds really cool - but for $65? I've noticed other tools that take a bit more work and are free/almost free. I was waiting for something just like this - but I think I'll do a little more work and save myself the cash.
Reply
Scott said 11:14AM on 3-13-2007
Completely absurd. Given the difficulties with the beta and the "nice to have" vs. "have to have" position of this app, I'd pay $19.95 and not a penny more (well, okay... maybe $19.99).
It's clear that they are approaching this as if Spanning Sync were a replacement for .Mac; if it were the price would be reasonable. It's not, though, by a long shot and the price, therefore, is way out of line. Someone in their marketing department has completely dropped the ball on the competitive pricing analysis.
I'm no raving fan of .Mac and it still doesn't do what Spanning Sync does, but I've got better places to spend my $65. I've just removed the app from my Mac and will just consider this another head-shaker in a long line of woulda/coulda/shoulda applications for the Mac.
What a shame.
Reply
v13 said 11:48AM on 3-13-2007
Wow, I was figuring $30-$35. $65 I don't think so.
They may have effectively priced themselves out of the market.
Reply
Mkummer said 10:50AM on 3-13-2007
$ 65.- - in one word that is ridiculous! Come on boys, thats just a calendar sync. I suggest $ 15.- for the whole thing, thats it. Otherwise no money at all - at lest from me - and obviously ALL colleagues here.
mmk
Reply
Matt said 11:03AM on 3-13-2007
I agree with most of the above comments and hope that the developer reads this. I use his app daily and with have to pay the 25.00 but it will not pay until my beta runs out and i will be on the hunt for another app that does this. i can not believe that they think $65 Us is a fair price for a sync app. Even the BEST games for my Xbox 360 don't cost this much. I went to the web site to look for an e-mail link to the developer so i could tell him what i think of his pricing. I really hope he revisits his price structure.
Reply
dave said 11:15AM on 3-13-2007
$65 once or $25 for a yearly subscription is well North of ridiculous. There's no way I'll even condider buying this product. The developer simply hasn't built that kind of value into it.
And here's the thing - I buy software quite often. If this pricing has someone like me concerned there is certainly a problem.
No way.
Reply