I filtered this one out of my email during the day. I do like me a feisty chat here and there, but one has to work, once in a while.
As to utility vs innovation, I think we're all going to feel a little schooled by the apps that come out of this and the second challenge. They'll be elegantly innovative, yet practical. That balance is extremely difficult. I have a huge pile in the back of my brain of "90% ideas". Fantastic idea, with some part that's going to make it not work. Of all the apps I've seen so far, the one I think has the best shot is the TeeDroid. The golf app. Why? - No social networking, so no "chicken/egg" problem. I started a closed invite networking site last year. It didn't go very far. Any social networking site is extremely difficult to start. This is compounded by the fact that when the first phones come out, most people aren't going to know other people with Android phones. - No major logistical problems. Some of these apps require national business partners to be set up before going live. Stuff like that. Man. Good luck. - Simple and useful. Every golf dude with and Android phone will install that thing. Every one. Its useful, and it doesn't take 20 minutes or a video to explain what it does. - Ad-city. They'll be looking at it all day while golfing. You can cover that thing with targeted ads. You know (roughly) who they are. Between 20 and 80, with cash that they will spend on golf stuff. I was thinking about it today. If they have a particularly bad round, show them some new clubs, or golf lessons (harsh, but it might sell). good round? Scotch ad. Full disclosure. I did not write the TeeDroid. Anyway, to soften the mood, best use of google maps api I've ever seen... http://findheman.com/ On Apr 30, 9:16 pm, "Dan Morrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not touching this thread with a 40-foot pole. > > Oh, wait..... > > - Dan > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I wish Dan would hop into this thread....if for nothing else but to > > tell us to knock it off or keep going! > > > On Apr 30, 8:24 am, "Muthu Ramadoss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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". > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
