No system is perfect, let's just live with that. It seems I am one of the contest losers, and it's a pity, but life goes on, I still think our idea has great potential.
On May 7, 8:57 pm, cybohemia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmmm...I wasn't able to my attempts to post to the Phishing thread so > here's a new one...(sorry for the multiple posts if the others pop up > eventually...the first was over two hours ago...) > > --- > > Hi, I'm a first-time poster, short-time lurker...since only last week, > really. I'm finally writing because the phishing post by GW raises a > lot of good points and the responses are just as intriguing. In > particular, the idea that judges may develop your idea does hit on > some sensitive concerns for developers. Fact is, despite the non- > disclosures the judges had to sign, such things are difficult to > enforce since you can't easily prove the judges didn't already have > the idea beforehand. The only practical way is to force them to > produce proof (e.g. documentation) and that would require some sort of > litigious action which basically pits the tiny individual with guts > (not to mention resources) against one of the most powerful companies > in to world. Large corporations get away with a lot simply through > intimidation of little guys who don't have the means or wherewithal to > practically even raise such concerns. > > As for patents, they most definitely favor companies and those with > resources: they are immensely costly, both in time and money. Going > up against a huge IP legal department with lot they can throw at > trying to work around a patent application a developer puts together > (most likely on a shoestring) offers bad odds. > > As for phishing: yes, google is getting a lot of great ideas for > practically nothing (from their perspective) but they've fired up the > development environment to rise up to the occasion and there will, in > the end, be winners who will reap the rewards for their hard work. > Sure, it's not a level playing field and companies have greater > resources than the humble hacker but we all knew that going in. Shoot > - I didn't even encounter Android until March but I worked like a > madman learning the crazy system and ended up thinking I had a > chance. Well, that may have been delusional but...anyway, back to the > thread. > > The idea of ADC is, in principle, a good one and kudos to google for > being bold enough to spread a bit of their wealth to fire up the > community in a positive way through such a Grand Experiment. That > said, executing a contest on such a scale with such sophisticated > entries is not as easy as the idea itself might have suggested. The > devil's in the details and the delays are proof of how it's already > complex enough that they couldn't even nail down the deadlines with > their own people. You would have thought that, with the mechanisms > they put in place and whatever padding (knowing how large projects > invariably suffer snags and such) that they would have had a good > handle on setting a reasonable deadline and sticking to it so as not > to create unnecessary anxiety in the community. But, perhaps it's > only fair to give the entries - that the developers worked so hard on > - the time they deserve rather than stick to some artificial (and > possibly optimistic) deadline. > > That said, it does become a bit worrisome: put some "creative, > indispensable" ideas in front of some middle manager craving for ideas > to climb up the ladder and you have to wonder how much time they're > spending trying to figure out how they can massage it against their > own earlier ideas to justify the argument that they've already had the > idea before the contest. Very little a non-disclosure can do to > regulate what people will think. What follows could be a struggle to > undermine the entry so that they can subsequently develop "their" > idea... > > Okay, now I may be getting too speculative and I have to start looking > for my tin hat before writing more but, my point is, in such a large > and complicated system (such as the ADC with volunteer judges from > around the world), you basically have an imperfect environment trying > to manifest an idealistic notion (of connecting bright developers to a > potentially huge user base). Mix the two and you're going to get > opportunistic middle managers on the one side and accusations, if not > lawsuits, thrown up by huffy little guys, based on real or perceived > wrongs. Well, let's hope it doesn't get to that. > > The upshot of all my babbling? Google may want to carefully study the > results and reactions with a lot of internal interviews (blacklined > but publicly available) before going ahead with ADC 2 later this year, > the commitment for which may have been as hasty as the announcements > of the various deadlines. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
