Yes, LBS is almost like a core service that your applications can leverage.
Agree there are tons of apps that are already doing this.
The apps must be distinguished by the functionality they offer:
FriendFinder and TaxiFinder are two different kinds of applications which
happen to use LBS to carry out the functionalities they offer.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>For a mobile app, LBS becomes such an important factor:
>
>
> >>* Find the nearest stuff.
>
>
> >>Dating - find the nearest date
> >>Gaming - find the nearest store
> >>Cooking - find the nearest market
> >>Cab - find the nearest cab
> >>Tourist - find the nearest interest
> >>Students - find the nearest library
>
> Agree, but how many LBS applications can you have? There is no way
> that 50 LBS applications will win. Most of the LBS applications
> submitted are probably just repeats of the same type of application.
> i.e. I'm sure that several people wrote LBS dating apps or LBS
> chatting apps, or LBS find your friend apps, etc, etc
>
> On Apr 29, 12:59 am, "Muthu Ramadoss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > For a mobile app, LBS becomes such an important factor:
> >
> > * Find the nearest stuff.
> >
> > Dating - find the nearest date
> > Gaming - find the nearest store
> > Cooking - find the nearest market
> > Cab - find the nearest cab
> > Tourist - find the nearest interest
> > Students - find the nearest library
> >
> > ...
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Kevin Galligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > You'll get a lot more mileage if you intelligently use a little bit of
> > > the phone features in the context of a really great app than using
> > > stuff for the sake of using it.
> >
> > > I'd imagine, anyway.
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Ho, but you are not implementing the ones below:
> >
> > > > >take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > > >AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific
> components,
> > > which
> > > > >are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to mention those
> > > > >android-specific api "constraints".
> >
> > > > CowBay says that if you are not implementing those than you've
> failed
> > > > criteria 2. Based on your list above seems to me like you've
> > > > failed. :)
> >
> > > > I'm just messing with you. I was being sarcastic with CowBay.
> > > > I also implemented all the features you listed above except
> > > > Orientation . It just doesn't make sense that every single
> application
> > > > has to have LBS, or use content provider or Services. Some
> > > > applications simply do not require this features. So no, I don't
> think
> > > > that just because you did not implement these three things that it
> > > > necessarily means that you failed criteria two.
> >
> > > > On Apr 28, 11:59 pm, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Can you think of a submission that uses more Android features
> than
> > > > > mine?
> >
> > > > > On Apr 28, 10:58 pm, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I probably have the most performant and processing intensive
> use of
> > > > > > the Android Platform showing the most effective use of the
> > > platforms
> > > > > > 2D graphics capabilities. I also use compelling features
> including
> > > the
> > > > > > following:
> >
> > > > > > * Vibration
> > > > > > * Orientation
> > > > > > * Animations
> > > > > > * Touch Screen
> > > > > > * Progress Bars/Dialogs
> > > > > > * Lifecycle Implementation
> > > > > > * And other Android specific features
> >
> > > > > > Accelerometer is the only major feature I am missing.
> >
> > > > > > On Apr 28, 7:24 pm, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > I think my chances are slim, but not because I'm not making
> > > effective
> > > > > > > use of Android. From Judges perspective they will not know
> the
> > > > > > > difference. I'm using touch functionality, a lot of the GUI
> > > > > > > components, pop ups, etc, etc. Based on your logic even
> tberthel
> > > has
> > > > > > > a worse chance of winning than me. All he is doing is using
> the
> > > > > > > drawing utilities from what I've seen from his demos. In
> fact, a
> > > lot
> > > > > > > of the applications I've seen all they do is use the 3d or 2d
> > > drawing
> > > > > > > utilities and that is it. This is true specially for a lot of
> the
> > > > > > > games.
> >
> > > > > > > On Apr 28, 9:11 pm, "Cow Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > i feel kinda sorry for your possibility to lose ADC, for it
> > > sounds like you
> > > > > > > > fail ADC Judging Criteria 2, " Effective Use of the Android
> > > Platform" >:{)
> >
> > > > > > > > still wishing you good lucks....
> >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Incognito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > To: "Android Challenge" <[email protected]
> >
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:05 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Android/Applets/J2ME
> >
> > > > > > > > >sounds like your apps were originally designed and
> implemented
> > > > > > > > >platform-agnostic. that is, they were not originally for
> > > android because,
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >they had been, imho, it would not seem so easy as you
> > > describe.
> >
> > > > > > > > True, that was my goal. I wrote my code so that it would
> > > initially
> > > > > > > > work on J2SE, J2ME, and Android. This forced me to write
> the
> > > business
> > > > > > > > layer platform-agnostic and just write interfaces that were
> > > platform
> > > > > > > > specific.
> >
> > > > > > > > >take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > > > > > > >AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other Android-specific
> > > components,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > >are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to
> mention
> > > those
> > > > > > > > >android-specific api "constraints".
> > > > > > > > >>how did you convert those?
> >
> > > > > > > > I'm not using LBS so no problem there. However, if I were I
> > > would just
> > > > > > > > put that behind a generic interface.
> > > > > > > > Services - My application does not require to be running on
> the
> > > > > > > > background so I didn't need to convert this.
> > > > > > > > Android Intent, content provider - I didn't have to use
> this
> > > feature
> > > > > > > > so I did not have to create an interface for it. IPhone
> does
> > > has
> > > > > > > > something very similar to this though.
> > > > > > > > They pass URL's between applications.
> >
> > > > > > > > What I did have to create interfaces for are the drawing
> > > utilities,
> > > > > > > > Threads, GUI objects, like buttons, text fields, text
> buttons,
> > > touch
> > > > > > > > and key event handling, etc.
> >
> > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 8:32 pm, "Cow Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > sounds like your apps were originally designed and
> > > implemented
> > > > > > > > > platform-agnostic. that is, they were not originally for
> > > android because,
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > they had been, imho, it would not seem so easy as you
> > > describe.
> >
> > > > > > > > > take for examples Android Intent, LBS, content provider,
> > > > > > > > > AndroidManifests.xml, Services, and other
> Android-specific
> > > components,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > are seldomly seen in other mobile platforms, not to
> mention
> > > those
> > > > > > > > > android-specific api "constraints".
> >
> > > > > > > > > how did you convert those?
> >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Incognito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > To: "Android Challenge" <
> [email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:02 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Android/Applets/J2ME
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>So, I'd guess if you want an iphone app in its native
> > > platform, you're
> > > > > > > > > >>going to have a much easier time just manually building
> it
> > > after your
> > > > > > > > > >>java version is done, then update it based on diffs.
> >
> > > > > > > > > At first glance that sounds like a really good idea. It
> would
> > > probably
> > > > > > > > > be true for small apps. i.e. A couple of thousand lines.
> > > > > > > > > I have tens of thousands of line of code written
> > > (distributted among
> > > > > > > > > several applications), easily close to 100,000 lines, and
> > > more than
> > > > > > > > > 1000 automated unit test cases.
> > > > > > > > > Trying to manually convert all this code to objective C
> would
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > extremely tedious. I would never have the patience to
> rewrite
> > > code
> > > > > > > > > that I already wrote once in a language and that has been
> > > tested and
> > > > > > > > > debugged thoroughly. Automating this is the best route
> for
> > > me. Then
> > > > > > > > > when I want to make changes to my code I make the changes
> > > only in Java
> > > > > > > > > and then I run the utility to convert the code to
> > > Objective-C, thus
> > > > > > > > > porting the changes over to Objective-C.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>Even if objective-C has every language feature of Java,
> and
> > > > > > > > > >>is syntactially very similar (or easily transformable),
> you
> > > have all
> > > > > > > > > >>the dependent libraries to worry about.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Is not as bad as you think. For the IPhone specific
> > > functionality,
> > > > > > > > > i.e. drawing, touch events, key events, I'm using
> interfaces
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > abstract or hide the actual API. So my applications speak
> to
> > > my
> > > > > > > > > interfaces and then my interfaces speak to the actual
> > > platform APIs.
> > > > > > > > > Very similiar to what Java Standard Edition does.
> > > > > > > > > So all I have to do is connect my interfaces with the
> actual
> > > hardware
> > > > > > > > > or platform specific API's and I'm all set to go.
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 4:18 pm, "Kevin Galligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't know your software background, and I don't know
> > > what
> > > > > > > > > > objective-C is like, but I'd highly suggest not doing
> that.
> > > I imagine
> > > > > > > > > > the commercial thing sucks. Rolling your own would be
> > > incredibly
> > > > > > > > > > painful. Even if objective-C has every language feature
> of
> > > Java, and
> > > > > > > > > > is syntactially very similar (or easily transformable),
> you
> > > have all
> > > > > > > > > > the dependent libraries to worry about. I'm sure the
> > > commercial thing
> > > > > > > > > > does a partial conversion, which would then require you
> to
> > > massage it
> > > > > > > > > > into a working application. When you want to update
> your
> > > original
> > > > > > > > > > app, you'd then wind up manually updating both anyway.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > So, I'd guess if you want an iphone app in its native
> > > platform, you're
> > > > > > > > > > going to have a much easier time just manually building
> it
> > > after your
> > > > > > > > > > java version is done, then update it based on diffs.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Incognito <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>IPhone has Java? I thought it was objective-C, or
> are
> > > you doing
> > > > > > > > > > > >>multiple implementations?
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm writing a utility that will transform java code
> to
> > > objective-C
> > > > > > > > > > > code. There is one company
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>
--
take care,
Muthu Ramadoss.
http://mobeegal.in
find stuff closer.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Android Challenge" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-challenge?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
