I agree with one thing:
The judges profile will play a big part in determining the winners. The
judges are given a set of instructions by google, but how they interpret
those rules is something only the judges can control.
The combination of the 4 judges will also be crucial.
I'm sure Peli can come up with a mathematical formula for finding out the
winners ;)
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
