Dude. You posted your app, then dropped a gauntlet by claiming it had
all those features and challenging people to find one that had more or
whatever. To be honest, I was writting the following...
"Does it have any numb chuck skills?"
Because I thought you were kidding. Then I realized you were serious.
You can't pump your fist and stomp your feet about how awesome your
app is and not expect people to call you out. Right?
So, why did you post it? I get the feeling you were waiting for
somebody to be like, "Yeah, that's awesome!". Then you didn't get
that. Now the thread is turning into a flame volley.
I agree with most of the responses. You picked a tough subject for
your app. From what I can gather, cell phone games seem to make up a
surprising portion of the submissions, and there are many commercial
entities out there scratching and clawing to be the top of the heap.
I'm willing to bet quite a few of them put in an entry. Adding touch
screen and rumble support to their existing highly polished and
commercially viable apps probably didn't require any all-nighters. I
thought this when you first posted your idea, and I have critical
thoughts about a lot of the posts, but generally keep them to myself.
Your replies, though, seem to draw it out of everybody. Including
(now) myself.
I have critical thoughts about my entries too. Don't worry ;)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:01 PM, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Name one game that has all the features I listed then you might have
> an argument. Name 10 games with the same features then you I will say
> your correct.
>
> Until then your are full of it.
>
> Both you and Chris need to look at the competition. They still have
> not done what I have listed yet. I am sure they will but they haven't
> yet until then you're spreading fud.
>
> I don't know what Samsung your using, but it's not running Android so
> what is the point until someone has what I have now on Android.
>
> When a better device/emulator comes out I will break out the
> multiplayer and 3D. My submission is the best your going to get on
> the OMAP 34XX which will be the majority of the phones for a while.
> Still the emulator is much faster than any phone I have had and that
> goes with most of the USA. So expecting every phone to have a Power VR
> and speed like your Samsung if it really is that powerful are still
> rare.
>
>
>
> On Apr 29, 7:06 am, Hielko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > tberthel: I understand that you think that you're application is very
> > cool, and that you are defensive when someone else doesn't (fully)
> > share your opinion, but I agree completely with Chris. You have some
> > cool games, but it isn't really special. There just the same type of
> > games I can run on my 2 year old simple Samsung phone. Implementing
> > stuff like progress bars/dialogs, touch screen, vibrations, the
> > lifecycle model etc etc is not really android specfic stuff. Every
> > half decent Android application will have those features.
> >
> > I would be very suprised if your games, and similair games, would make
> > it to the top 50: simple because there is little innovation. Games
> > like Wifi Army or Parallel Kingdoms will have a far better probability
> > to make it in the top 50.
> >
> > That said: I hope for you that the judges don't share my opinion :)
> >
> > On Apr 29, 11:25 am, tberthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Every APK has the Manifest and the others are, "other Android-specific
> > > components" which includes my whole list. So, I think I meet the
> > > "CowBay Standard".
> >
> > > On Apr 28, 11:33 pm, 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]>
> >
>
>
> > ...
> >
> > read more ยป
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
