Jill, this is a big deal. I just convinced my client to upgrade on the strength of the statement Alicia quoted above. They have about a dozen committees whose chairs were to take responsibility for managing their own calendar dates. Education committee chair was going to take responsibility for their subcalendar. Now I need, what, 12 - 15 accounts to protect the main calender from a sub-calendar editor deleting someone else's meetings? That's not what was expected at all.
All I think either of us are looking for limited access to specific sub-calendars by named users with passwords. They are not multiple editors if they are restricted to pretending to be a single user with a singel user account...at least not in any Web 2.0 sense I'm aware of. That's like saying your blog can have as many authors and editors as you want...as long as they all share your administrative password. (Well, duh!, but that's not really multi-user is it?)
This is a website for God's sake. It takes minutes to correct text that is misleading or poorly written. Why has this statement remained there for so long if it's so misleading? I reviewed that page with my client about a month ago -- highlighting the advantages of having a service with multiple user access levels. Are you actively recommending Google's calendar for this solution? You've got a great product here, so there's no excuse for needing the kind of bait and switch that text creates.
The good news is, it is clearly a desirable feature... how soon can we expect it to be put into a beta release?
I had thought that I had this feature confirmed when I exchanged some e-mail with Tom Leung, but in reviewing my emails I guess I was mistaken.
Here's (in my mind) why this limitation makes no sense.
1. If my account enables me to make multiple integrated and non-integrated calendars (primary and sub calendars) then one account enables any of my "multiple users" to make their own totally unrelated calendars (if they desire) -- why should they need separate accounts?
2. Let's see, in reviewing scriptsearch.com, even the most complex calendar systems that DO offer true multiple users only cost about $50.
3. Something like eloops.com which offers calendars, data storage, etc breaks out at $2.50 per user per month or less.
4. Significant competition exists : http://www.listible.com/list/best-online-calendars, ummm Kiko in particular looks close in feature sets, huntcal.com is similar.
5. So, aside from losing the advertising in the spud, exactly what are the benefits of paying for pro edition?
If we set up the basic accounts (free) with each committee can we incorporate their calendars?
I really need a solution to this, not 'sorry' -- so let's find / hack / build a solution. Whaddya say?