This is possible since a judge only sees 5% of the applications. They won't
know that there are so many duplicates.
Shane
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Muthu Ramadoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> But it would be odd to announce the top 50 with 10 various XFinders..
>
> Imagine..
>
> 1. FriendFinder
> 2. DateFinder
> 3. TaxiFinder
> 4. CatFinder
>
> LOL.. It all depends on the judges and what they are smokin that day ;)
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Muthu Ramadoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
