found_drama

Emphasize differences.



    Tag Archive for 'google'

    #Google Calendar adds CalDAV support

    Already “link-dumped” on July 28th but1…  Here are the detailed notes: it would seem that as of today (July 28th) Google has added CalDAV support to their online calendar2!  The short version of what this means?  Now you can get “native” reciprocal syncing between your Mac’s iCal and your gCal3.  ”Just follow these easy steps!

    It seems like one of those “haven’t you been waiting for this?” type moments.  The delicious UI of iCal, finally playing nice with that pervasive gCal used by so many users at home and abroad…  The “holy grail” of calendar sharing: two-way (even three-way! four-way!) sharing of a single calendar across multiple computers and applications. Read the rest of this entry »

    1. Saw this first over on LifeHacker.[]
    2. From here forward referred to as “gCal”.[]
    3. TUAW seems to have tagged it “together at last” and I do believe I agree.[]

    #the great Google Calendar switch

    Google Calendar (beta) logoBack at the beginning of October, I decided to take the plunge and “switch” from using iCal more/less exclusively for my calendaring to using the web-based Google Calendar more/less exclusively. The reasons for the switch (even as just an experiment) were myriad and had built up slowly over a period of about two years. The catalyst however, the item that really caught fire with me, was when I decided that I needed to be able to add calendar events on the fly, from pretty much anywhere1 and then discovering that SMS’ing “GVENT” already does this with the Google calendar… Well, that pretty much sealed the deal.

    As a long-time iCal user advocate, I was reluctant to make this switch. I tend to perceive web-based applications as implicitly less-reliable and thus implicitly untrustworthy when compared to relatively stable desktop alternatives. If this seems a little unfair then I suppose I don’t give enough credit to the stability and/or ubiquity of internet connectivity2. I feel the need to have the information “right there” and available to me whether Google’s servers are up and running or not. Perhaps I have trust issues in that way; it’s one thing for Flickr or Twitter to flake out for an hour (those are just for playtime, right?) — it’s a whole other thing for my calendar app to be down.

    Now even with the add-via-SM feature, I had a couple of other questions I needed answered before moving forward:

    1. What about my existing calendars? Easy enough. Export those from iCal as .ics files and import them. A two-step operation, eh? Non-issue.
    2. But what about my recurrence rules? Should have known better than to worry about this… The .ics files store the recurrence rules (and the exceptions and violations); it’s built right into the standard. Non-issue.
    3. What about invites and notifications? I wasn’t worried about losing these. Actually, I was more concerned that they would get imported “too easily” and would wind up bacn bombing my contacts. Not sure how I was going to control for this. And though I took no special measures, this fortunately did not happen3
    4. And what about syncing? I knew that as fail-over, I could set up iCal to defer to the Google Calendar. I knew that if it all failed, I could dump the calendar events back out of Google (with .ics again) and put them back. Reverting wouldn’t be hard. But what about pushing that calendar to my phone? For reminders and such. I didn’t necessarily want to get hit with SMSs from Google every time an event was coming up due. Well, luckily iCal could pull the events from Google and dup them into the syncing engine where iSync could push them to my phone as I had been doing all along.

    Simple enough?

    So I made that switch. And of course, the same day that I commit everything to Google Calendar is the same evening that the whole thing is inaccessible for about two hours. Universally so? Perhaps not. I didn’t see or hear of any widespread clamor. But it certainly annoyed me. And struck as at least mildly ironic.

    But beyond that it’s gone well enough. No one’s been bacn bombed. My phone has all of my appointments. So that much appears to be working out just fine. And the GVENT add-via-SMS feature is teh hawt.

    The web interface itself is reasonably smooth — certainly on par with the iCal desktop interface. Sharing with others has proven easier than the iCal-plus-private server arrangement I had going before4. Overall the uptime and reliability has been fair; aside from the one major “outage”, there have only been a handful of cases where I could not connect immediately (and those passed with a brief refresh). Now, I’d been keeping the calendars in sync via a private PHP iCalendar + WebDAV solution but… Well, if you’ve messed around with this at all, you’re already aware of the limitations you quickly come across.

    With so much emphasis on syncing and sharing, some folks may be wondering: why not just jump on with Spanning Sync? Well, two simple reasons: (1) it would crash either iCal or the Finder on a daily basis when I was trying it out during the beta period5 and (2) I am looking for a no-cost solution if at all possible. For the possibility of getting iCal/gCal two-way syncing in play, Spanning Sync comes close to “worth it” so perhaps that is our next assignment.

    That said, the next question becomes: will iCal Server provide yet another alternative to consider? Only if it lets me add events via SMS, right?

    1. Translation: “from my phone”.[]
    2. An old fashioned attitude? Maybe so.[]
    3. Yet?[]
    4. Which really only helped A. & I. Well, mostly just me.[]
    5. Yeah, I know what beta means. The fact remains that regardless of the system I installed this on, my apps crashed and my calendar data was compromised.[]

    #Google’s “My Maps”

    Google: My Maps: Vermont PanoramicsGoogle launched “My Maps” this week and it seems to be all over the place. It’s a fun, addictive little toy; a nice addition to their already pretty awesome map system. Brady Forrest called it “a direct shot across the bow of sites like Platial and Frappr” — and while I don’t necessarily agree with the aggressive connotations of the “direct shot” part, he does hit it with the bit about geo-indexing individual web sites. That’s pretty rad. (Don’t bother with the comments. Nothing of value there.) It’ll definitely be interesting to see how this grows and layers it adds to Google’s model (esp. w/r/t/ local search…)

    Anyway, enough tech punditry: this shit is fun.

    I’m almost embarrassed to admit that I spent the better part of my morning building out this “Vermont Panoramics” map. Sure, all these photos were already geotagged in Flickr but the Yahoo! maps just don’t have the same granularity, the same level of detail as Google’s. 1 So it’s been pretty neat, playing around with it. Getting the feel of the tools, dropping content into it and onto it, all of that good stuff.

    And if they’re reading (indexing? crawling?), here’s my My Maps wishlist:

    • If I draw a line, I should get the distance. This is going to be critical to making this a success.
    • Similarly: if I draw a shape, I should get the area.
    • Let me make my own “push pin” icons.
    • Latitude/longitude entry. I know that some folks like being arbitrary and guess. I tend to favor precision whenever and wherever possible.
    • Public vs. private maps is nice but what if I’d like to open up the map a little? Not just make the map public but really and truly share it with folks? Let them add push pins as well?

    UPDATE:  I left out the part about plugging the KML into Google Earth for the fly-arounds and another take on the location surfing.  It’s pretty damned cool.

    currently playing: Shunt Limit “As Time Goes By (Luke Jay mix)”

    1. I mean seriously: in the Yahoo! map, my house is a pixelated blur and in Google’s I can see the foundation and know that the image was taken while it was under construction.[]

    #links for 2007-04-06


    #links for 2006-12-05


    #links for 2006-11-10


    #AOL and Google (2)

    As noted last week, [tag]Google[/tag] and [tag]AOL[/tag] are on the merge. And today it’s official.

    [The] comments followed a decision by Time Warner’s board of directors on Tuesday to approve a deal in which Google, the world’s leading internet search company, will pay $1bn for a 5 per cent stake in AOL, giving the business an implied value of $20bn.

    No shortage of interesting points to speculate on. Roll AIM and GoogleTalk into one? (Just kidding?)

    Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, on Tuesday called the deal “an important next step” for both companies. “Today’s agreement leverages technologies from both companies to connect Google users worldwide to a wealth of new content…”

    I thought Google’s engine was designed to be leveraged on everything publicly available on the web in the first place? Or is that just the thing? It seems to be all about the ads and ad revenue - - which makes sense. Everyone keeps pointing out that this could potentially compromise Google’s search integrity but somehow I doubt it. This isn’t about the indexing - - this is about the sponsored links and the AdWords and all that. It’s about getting advertisers to put tons of confidence into AOL and leveraging AOL’s agreement to get preferential positioning on the right hand side of the search results. Time will tell but the index on its own is to sacred to fuck with. At least in that way.

    currently playing: Hybrid “Finished Symphony”

    UPDATE: And here’s the Slashdot thread… Some good comments on who is getting what out of the deal and (surprise?) a bunch on the unified IM theory


    #Google and AOL

    [tag]Time Warner[/tag] Plans to Sell 5% of [tag]AOL[/tag] to [tag]Google[/tag]:

    Finally [...] Richard D. Parsons [...] told Eric E. Schmidt [...] that he would accept Google’s recently sweetened offer. Google, which prides itself on the purity of its search results, agreed to give favored placement to content from AOL throughout its site, something it has never done before. [...] …Mr. Parsons called Steven A. Ballmer [...] this morning to give him the news that the deal [...] was going to Google…

    And you thought Ballmer was pissed already, eh?