> If there's a competition between Innovation vs Useful, Useful will win most
> of the time.
In the real world, I completely agree. But, this is a challenge meant
to showcase a new platform first and an application second - I think
that is what some people aren't getting.
To highlight this point look at the judging criteria listed in the
previous post:
> "We welcome all types of applications but are looking to reward innovative,
> useful
> apps that make use of Android's capabilities to deliver a better mobile
> experience."
The takeaway line is "apps that make use of Android's capabilities to
deliver a better mobile experience." Throwing progress bars and
vibrations into a 2D game is not what the judges mean by using
Android's capabilities to deliver a better mobile experience. That
is the status quo -the judges want next gen.
On Apr 30, 5:58 am, "Muthu Ramadoss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there's a competition between Innovation vs Useful, Useful will win most
> of the time.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Hielko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 30, 6:06 am, Izard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That's a compelling point of view, and judges may actually think
> > > exactly this way. Especially considering mobile operators in the
> > > Alliance (and may be Google too) will always prefer network connected
> > > games to standalone as it drives their revenue up.
>
> > The business model won't be the same everywhere, but I suppose that
> > most people that want Android will also want a subscribtion with
> > unlimited internet access for a fixed price. That's certainly how it
> > is going to be in the Netherlands.
>
> > > While Wi-fi army and Parallel Kingdoms are clearly type of games that
> > > are enabled by the platofrm, if I abstract from the judging process
> > > and think about man-hours to be spent/wasted playing this "innovative"
> > > kind of games and tetris/puzzles/platformers, I think the winner will
> > > not be so apparent. People are actually playing simpler games on
> > > their phones while commuting (the most widespread usage model for
> > > mobile games, I've been seeing almost every second person playing
> > > something unsophisticated on mobile phone/PDA or reading in the
> > > underground when I lived in a megapolis)
>
> > This is a very good point. On the ADC page google states: "We welcome
> > all types of applications but are looking to reward innovative, useful
> > apps that make use of Android's capabilities to deliver a better
> > mobile experience." The keywords here are innovative and useful.
> > Perhaps the most unsophisticated games are the most 'usefull', but the
> > complex games are certainly more innovative. We will see how this
> > turns out in the judging.
>
> > > On Apr 30, 12:06 am, Hielko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
