A couple of years ago, I wanted my calendars and tasks to sync in both directions between my Mac laptop and my (at that time) Palm Treo phone. I ended up getting it working through some 3rd party software, and it worked pretty well, though it was not a cloud-based solution -- just local sync between my laptop and my phone.

Nowadays, I've got a phone (Palm Pre) that is optimized for keeping data in the cloud -- Google's cloud in particular. Since iCal now supports Google calendar sync, I thought I'd be all set. Sadly, no.

The problems I've encountered:

1. Google Calendar's CalDAV backend (through which iCal communicates with Google Calendar) seems to not support storage of tasks created in iCal. I have no idea what the underlying technical limitation is, but it's listed as a known issue, which tells me it's not a trivial fix.

1a. Google Calendar doesn't seem to support my calendar requirements quite right. What I wanted was my own calendar for my own stuff, and then another calendar I share with my wife for things we both care about (as well as for a "honey do" list.) Of course, the latter is defeated by #1 above, and the former, giving someone else access to a "secondary" calendar in Google and then having that subscribed to and visible in iCal, was a giant hassle to get working, and once I realized I couldn't store tasks in the same shared calendar, I gave up on it and went back to my previous solution (self-hosted CalDAV server.)

1b. I've looked into other cloud-ish task-management solutions like Remember The Milk and BaseCamp, but the former *still* doesn't do 2-way iCal sync (in 2010! I know!) and the latter seems to be waaaay over-engineered for the simple "I want calendars and tasks on all my devices" case, so I'm hesitant to devote a lot of time to it without knowing it'll do what I want.

2. iCal, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to like speaking with CalDAV calendars over my work proxy. I don't know if this is my proxy's fault, but it fails for both a Google Calendar CalDAV account as well as an account on my own CalDAV server that I host privately. I have not found any suitable workaround, which means my "home" calendars can't sync while I'm at work.

3. My work calendar (Exchange) is still going to have to be a one-off local sync type thing. Luckily, Snow Leopard's Exchange support is solid, so it's easy to use a program like Missing Sync for Palm Pre to do this outside the cloud.

I guess I'm just wondering if anyone else out there had run into these issues, or knew of some better way to get this all working together. I know that some of my requirements are a bit esoteric, but we've got some esoteric geeks here, so I figured I'd ask.

To be clear, by "iCal", you're referring to Apple's calendaring program on MacOS, right?

And it all works correctly between the Pre and Google? So the odd man out is just the Mac?

Yeah. iCal.app, not iCalendar, the .ics format.


Calendar sync works flawlessly between Pre <-> Google Calendar. I haven't tried tasks sync yet, because the place where I usually originate my tasks is in iCal.app, and Google Calendar stubbornly refuses to store them when I add them to a GCal calendar in iCal.app.

For tasks, I've heard good things about Toodledo, and they have a feature comparison that lists a bunch of their competitors, so that's probably a good place to start.

It seems that the issue has less to do with the cloud than it does interoperability (IMO). Yes, you're using a cloud service, but you could just as easily have two non-cloud services not talk to each other properly.

Tasks is something that Google hasn't done well in general. They have their own tasks system that's kind of sloppy, and I don't know why they don't support the tasks part of the CalDAV standard, but they don't.

Yeah, it might not be the cloud itself, but it's my transition to the cloud that requires a higher degree of interoperability. When I was just syncing my phone to my desktop over bluetooth, there weren't as many moving parts as when my phone is storing things in Google's cloud, and then my laptop needs to read and write to that same cloud. Semantics, really.

It doesn't seem to be just Google that sucks at tasks. Remember The Milk is fine, but how can they not support iCal sync? Tasks would seem to be similar to, if not easier than calendar entries. I'd happily use some other service just for tasks if I could get it all to work right.

Oh, I just remembered another limitation I don't like: you can't sync over shared Google calendars to iCal. Like, I'm subscribed to a US Holidays calendar and a couple of sports team calendars in Google, but I can't see those from iCal. Instead, I have to subscribe to iCal versions of them from my laptop, which won't necessarily be the same. The whole point of the cloud is to have data in one place and access it from multiple clients, and, so far, I'm really not getting those advantages because of all the interoperability problems.

I really don't think that's "the whole point." For me, at least, the point of the cloud is to have the data safely off my local systems, safe from physical theft, damage, or failure. The next advantage is to have access to it anywhere. I have both of these things, and so do you.

What you want is to have your iCal information in the cloud, but you haven't found a service that does it 100%. Again, that's not the fault cloud computing, just Google's non-support of iCal's tasks. I understand that that sucks for you, but I know that for me cloud computing has made my life a whole lot better/easier, and it works flawlessly for the most part.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not giving Google a pass on your specific issue. I have found that using Google as the hub is always the best way to go, and that things get messy when you try to make something else the root of your information and try to force Google to work with it. I'm not saying it's right, that's just sort of how it is.

Yeah, "the whole point" was an overstatement, but there are plenty of other ways to do safe and reliable data backups that don't involve sending data to some third party using their infrastructure. I guess I should have said "the unique feature" rather than "the whole point."


Ah, but you have it backwards. I *want* Google to be the hub. I might use iCal and my phone as the primary interfaces, but I want all the data to reside in Google's cloud, using Google's services as the conduit. It just doesn't work the way it could, or should. All I was asking for were some workarounds or other things to try. This wasn't at all meant as a complaint thread about Google or cloud computing in general (I also use Amazon S3 for storage, so I loves me some cloud), just a request for help on some specific areas where Google has failed me.

Sorry, I think I'm just getting turned around because using a desktop application for calendaring is a little foreign to me at this point. It's easier/quicker for me to simply pull up my Google Calendar online.

I've looked everywhere and it just doesn't look like Google Calendar supports tasks, which doesn't surprise me because Google's tasks "service" is pretty half-baked. I don't know why they didn't simply support tasks like iCal or Outlook do it, but perhaps that wasn't as standardized as other calendaring features? I don't know.

Sorry, I wish I could be of more help. I guess I'm just a little too cozy in my Google Calendar here

And that's exactly what makes me a bit uneasy about the whole cloud concept. No doubt I'm being unreasonably paranoid, but the thought of having my "precious data" not under my physical control, or rather havig it under someone else's physical control gives me pause. (Precious data? Hardly! Hey, I've got a few credit card numbers stored in my computer, and a couple of naked pictures of my wife (don't tell her!) but aside from that, nothing in my computer would cause me enormous distress if it were compromised).

However, as we all know, supposedly secure, impregnable data banks are hacked all the time. If I did have in my computer "mission critical" data, or data that could cause me irreparable harm if compromised (and many, if not most people do, if they gave it serious thought) I would not be comfortable with having it stored somewhere other than where I could keep an eye on it.

And yes, I know I'm being naive, and the data in my computer, connected to the internet, is probably far less secure than it would be on Google's servers. But still, just the idea...

tanstaafl.

Nah, it's cool... It's probably me who's "weird" here, in that I still prefer using native applications to AJAXy web things. Neither Gmail nor Google Calendar feel like suitable replacements for a native app, and neither of them can connect to my work email/calendar

It's not just you. I still prefer native apps. GMail is kinda cool, but I have no choice in any changes they do, like sharing my address book with everyone when the roll out some twitter clone. With my native apps, I can at least evaluate new versions on my own time, instead of being forced to learn something new and deal with new privacy issues when all I need is one bit of information.

As for "cloud stuff", my attempt to link my contacts to Google via Address Book ended up causing a good portion of my GTalk list to be unauthorized. It also created some other strange issues, like duping a few contacts, breaking apart others, and just overall made a mess I still haven't finished cleaning up. iCal, I tried the same route as you with CalDav and never did get all the kinks worked out in my 2 weeks with the Captivate.

My experience with MobileMe has been a little better, but not all perfect. When things go wrong, generally I have to force resync an affected system. The handy thing is that Apple shows all computer systems that sync, and I can force reset any one of them remotely. They however don't do this for mobile devices. Overall though, it's done fine to ensure my contacts and such are where I want them.

For me, it's not the threat of hacking that gives me pause. It's the threat of a company going out of business and shutting down their servers without warning.

Even knowing that, I still keep a ton of critical information in my GMail. I depend on GMail more than anyone reasonably should.

But that's why you have to look for services that a) look like they'll be around a while, and b) let you get your data out. Google is one of the best companies on the internet in both regards. They're clearly not going anywhere, and when it comes to point b, they even have an internal group dedicated to the idea.

GMail, of all the services they have, is probably the easiest to get the data in and out. You can simply access it with a POP3 email client and download everything, or connect with IMAP and drag and drop all your email over, and you can export your contacts.

For me, the promise of the cloud is that it's everywhere. My data isn't tied to one computer and doesn't depend on one device in any way. I can access the information from any machine. The first time, in 2005, when I started an email at work and finished it at home, I was hooked. I don't need a desktop client and more importantly I don't want one in the least.

I've been able to do the same since 1992, before "cloud computing" was ever in anyones mind. Drafts stored on the server, and accessibility (back then) provided by any terminal program. The only thing that changed is that the terminal morphed into the browser.

I suppose for many, GMail was amazing to them because their previous e-mail experience was with POP based setups, that encourage not leaving mail on the server. I made a push to move to IMAP after I used it on USA.Net in 1998. I had web mail, and a perfect copy of the state shown on the web site in Eudora. Once I moved off USA.net I set up my own IMAP server, granting me the ability to start an e-mail from any device, and finish it on any other. Including places like an airplane where connectivity isn't commonplace, since my IMAP client is syncing locally.

I'm still waiting for something cloud based to actually amaze me. So far, most of the things going on in the cloud are just rehashes of whats been possible for decades. The only difference now is the end user is losing more and more control.

Yeah, and let anyone do it without any knowledge of the stuff you're talking about. You seem to make light of that, like anyone could easily do what you're talking about. Not one of the people I support would be able to, even if it were set up for them.

I didn't say it wasn't possible before, but it's far easier now and anyone can use it.

For that to actually be guaranteed useful though, you need to be getting your data out now on a regular basis.

If some calamity befell your favourite cloud service tomorrow, the service is likely to be completely swamped with other people also trying to download their complete dataset. Which why if I ever get round to moving my various domains to Google I'll make sure I have an automated sync in place before I commit

Nothing specific to the cloud though makes this easier for the end user. Ease of use is an implementation issue. USA.Net, Hotmail (pre Microsoft) and such all set out to make a web based e-mail solution, allowing those companies be able to control most of the implementation to make it easy. The only end user requirement was a browser and knowing how to type in a URL. Before browser e-mail, there was still setups that could make it very easy on the end user, but since multiple companies were involved, not much happened there. It was completely possible for an e-mail program to set up an IMAP account for a user by simply having them provide their e-mail address and password and a number of programs support this. Most ISPs though didn't support IMAP, nor did they bother to set up the pieces required on their end for automatic account setup.

Is the cloud just about making existing possibilities easier and allowing access from multiple places? Or are there truly unique things that can be offered by the cloud. And if so, what are they?

"The cloud" is just the latest fashionable buzzword like "Web 2.0" was. As you said, most of the concepts already existed way before anybody even came up with the term. Bundle it all together and give it a new name. Earn $$$ as you write books and give talks about it.

Thats what I'm leaning towards as well, a buzzword with little actual meaning. I posed the question mostly to see what others feel about it. Some of the solutions I look at in my job enjoy tacking on cloud for the hell of it, with no real explanation what makes it different then just standard setups.

A view I get is that people think that once its "in the cloud" then its safe and you don't need to worry about it. Microsoft and the Sidekick disaster is a prime example. The Sidekick phones were supposed to have all their storage online and yet Microsoft/Danger screwed up badly enough that they temporarily lost all the data for weeks.

Maintenance and administration of all these systems might be Somebody Elses Problem but you're relying on them to actually do it properly which may not actually happen.

Nothing stopping Google, Twitter and all those other sites from turning around one day and saying nah, actually we've changed our business plan and will no longer offer X service.

Sheesh! You all act like when/if that were to happen, they would do so immediately, without any notice. First, I think it's unlikely to happen the way you're fearing. Google, for example, would catch hell for something like that, so it wouldn't be worth it to them. Just look at Wave. That wasn't even a success, and they announced its death nearly six months in advance in order to give people enough time to get whatever they needed out of it.

I'm not naive, I know that I'm putting my data in someone else's control, and I know a large number of people on this forum hate that idea. That's fine, I'm not going to convince you, but sometimes I think you guys are a little too scared of these services.

And I don't care if you call it the "cloud" or not. It's just an easy way to refer to it. For crying out loud, it's just a term!


That's why, if you're one of these people always expecting the sky to fall, you can work with a desktop client using POP.

A term without meaning is kinda pointless though, as it conveys nothing. Thats why I'm trying to figure out what "cloud" actually is. It's a term used to describe so much, but no one can really define it. At VMWorld recently it was very popular term but I couldn't figure out what it actually meant for them, as they were just slapping it on everything without definition. Much like I'm trying to figure out what "open" actually is when in reference to Android, or Flash, or other areas that enjoy throwing that term around.

If Gmail closed in 6 months time, tell me how easy it would be to get everything changed to your new email address.


Not sure why you think we're scared of it and why you're so angry in this post. I use Gmail and a whole bunch of other Google services. My phone directly syncs to it. I'm perfectly happy with how it works. I'm still aware that how the service works and whether it will still exist is totally at the mercy of Google themselves. They may decide to change it next month for the worse for all I know.


It just a term yes but it gets tiring when all you hear is the cloud this and the cloud that. Bolting it onto something which doesn't need it is popular these days just so they can claim that they've got integration with the cloud blah blah.

Pretty easy, actually. It took my mom less than a week to get everything moved over from her ISP-provided email to using GMail instead. It then took about another week for her to change her address everywhere she had it listed and for everyone in her address book to switch to her new email address.

It really isn't as difficult to switch as people seem to think. And if I were worried about switching, I'd use GMail with an email address for my own domain (which I do with several addresses). That way it's pretty simple to move everything over to another service.

And sorry, I wasn't angry, just a little frustrated. I wasn't sure why you guys were so down on all this stuff. I know you use it, but you do seem to be simultaneously fearful of it. I guess I just don't let that stuff worry me too much...

*edit*
And I still maintain that it's just a freaking term. We use all sorts of terms that aren't specific, but we do it to make communication easier. When I tell someone "the cloud," it's a starting-off point. They understand that we're talking about data being stored on servers somewhere else on the web.


Yeah, but you could say that about a lot of terms. They get used as buzz terms by some people, and as regular dialog by others. I guess what I'm saying is: what's the big deal?

Ok, so you define cloud as "data being stored on servers somewhere else". Problem is, thats not the same definition I've heard elsewhere (for example from VMWare), so in using that term, your invoking a different definition in my mind then in yours. So it's actually complicated the conversation instead of adding clarity.

It's very similar to .Net back when Microsoft was throwing that term on everything. Was it a language, a server OS, an Office release, or what? Thankfully over time they backed off many of the uses of it to refine it to just meaning a set of APIs and technology that provide a more modern development environment. Windows Server .Net was renamed Server 2003, Office NGO/.Net also turned into just Office 2003 and so on.

I'd find it significantly harder to switch over since I've been using my email address for years now and everything goes through it. There are so many sites which use your email address as the username but there isn't actully any method short of calling them up to change that.


You still think we're fearful of it for some bizarre reason.

Do you have your own copy of your emails/whatever thats stored out there? Or do you not care or trust that the service will keep it safe? As I previously mentioned, Microsoft screwed up badly with the Sidekick service and at one point they admitted that the missing data was most likely gone forever. If Gmail deleted your account forever and lost all your emails along with that specific address, would you mind?

I'm fine with data being stored online but I still want some modicum of control and responsibility over it. This may be me backing it up myself or just ensuring that nothing important is ever kept there. If you think that is being fearful of "the cloud" then I guess you just don't consider your data to be worth anything.


That is a pretty vague definition of "the cloud". What distinguishes what you call "the cloud" with every other server on the internet? Last I checked, this website is stored on a server somewhere else on the internet. Does empegbbs.com use cloud computing?


I did say that about other terms. Its the latest buzzword and just annoying because it gets included into things for no reason to generate good PR for their press releases.

We had some software written for the traders at the bank to use. Along with all the actual features we needed, the developers made a big thing about "updates from the cloud" which turned out to be that the app regularly checked their website for patches. Which we couldn't allow anyway because of the need for a secure network.

To me, "cloud" refers to data hosted by a public service provider, and accessible from anywhere on the Internet, usually with standards-based APIs for accessing said data in an application-specific manner.

drakino, where you at VMWorld?