Great points.
If Google categorizes winners either by functionality or by types of
submission, then the top 50 winners are not really the best 50 apps in the
challenge. Or do they?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think it is possible but very unlikely. My guess is that the last
> 100 applications will get a much closer look and the final round
> judges won't let very many redundant applications slip by.
>
> I also expect Google will make sure there is an even mix of winners
> between individual, team, and corporate winners. I'm sure they
> wouldn't want to burn bridges with all us little people by awarding
> all the money to big corporations who put 10 developers on the
> project. I can almost guarantee companies like Loopt are developing
> Android applications that will put a lot of us to shame.
>
> On Apr 28, 11:15 pm, "Muthu Ramadoss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Yes, It is possible. I wonder how Google would react to this.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Shane Isbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more ยป
> >
>
--
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
