So you look around at all the tools that already sync calendars—Reclaim, Motion, CalendarBridge, even basic features in Calendly or Cal.com—and it’s easy to wonder: do I really need to build this?
Is there still a gap?
Is it still worth doing?
Because despite everything that already exists, there's still a hole. Or maybe more precisely, there's still something missing in how this problem is solved. These tools do parts of the job, but they don’t do it simply enough—and they definitely don’t do it in a way that feels designed for the kind of person whose primary business is their time. The solopreneur. The service provider. The time-for-money professional. Their calendar is their inventory. Their availability is the storefront.
So maybe the question is: am I just itching to create something—or am I actually seeing a real, unhandled use case?
Because if the tools already out there handled this well, maybe I'd just keep using them. But they don’t. Not cleanly. Not natively. Not without workarounds. And certainly not with the kind of experience I think this deserves.
Not a calendar. Not a booking tool
Where does Sync sit?
It's not a calendar, like Google Calendar or Apple Calendar. It’s not a booking tool, like Calendly or Cal.com. It’s not a scheduler like TidyCal, Vyte, or SimplyMeet, etc.
Calendly and Cal, for instance, are great at defining availability and letting others book you. But they’re not your source of truth. You can still create meetings in your Apple or Google Calendar outside them. Which means: double bookings still happen. The system breaks down unless you’re all-in on one tool—and even then, it’s brittle.
So what if Sync doesn't try to be a calendar or a booking app?
What if it just sits in the middle—neutral, independent—and listens?
What if Sync just listened?
Imagine Sync as a cloud-based layer. You create an account, connect all your calendars (Apple, Google, Outlook, etc.), and hook up any booking tools you use. That’s it.
From there, Sync just listens.
You define your preferences: which slots you want open, how aggressive it should be about blocking conflicts, whether to prompt you before doing anything. And as soon as something gets booked—whether through a booking app or manually on your calendar—Sync knows. It sees it, then auto-updates your other connected tools to reflect that block.
So if someone books you on Google Calendar directly, Sync picks it up and marks you as unavailable everywhere else. If someone cancels, it reopens the slot.
You don’t have to touch anything. No manual updates across tools. No duplicated logic. Just availability that stays true.
Can it stay tool-agnostic?
This is what makes Sync worth doing: it’s not asking people to switch. It’s not trying to replace your setup. It’s just giving you a way to make it all hang together.
But for that to work, Sync needs to stay agnostic. It has to support more than just Calendly or Cal.com. It has to keep adding connectors—support for SavvyCal, OnceHub, Chili Piper, you name it. It’s not about competing with them. It’s about working alongside them. Extending them.
That’s why it has to live in the cloud, not inside any of these tools. It needs enough access to read and write to your calendars and booking tools, but otherwise stay out of the way.
So is it worth building?
It still feels like there’s something here.
It still feels like Sync has a place.
Not a calendar.
Not a booking interface.
Not another scheduling app.
Just a quiet, tiny control panel—built for people whose inventory is time.
Maybe that’s enough. Maybe that’s exactly what’s missing.