There is a difference between ADC and Google: Google came up with a better mouse trap - the problem (search) was a known one that folks were trying to solve. Here, part of the creative process is identifying the problem in the first place and then inventing a good solution. That's bit different.
Anyway, the point of my post was just to expand on some points that were raised that I thought were worth further analysis. I agree that being paranoid to the point of not doing anything is clearly counter- productive. Nothing ventured, nothing gained and all that...which is why I submitted my app :) On May 7, 1:01 pm, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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... > > You have to remember that there are 4 judges and that applications > were asigned randomly. Also, they process the results to check for > outliers. i.e. if one judge's results deviates significantly from the > others. A lot of people would have to be in it in order to be able to > bring down a good application. At least two or three of the judges > would have to be part of the conspiracy for any given application. > Now, I do agree that many judges will walk out with a lot of new ideas > that they may or may not copy. But you know what, if you are too > afraid of everything you will never do anything. Besides, as soon as > you release your application for commercial use you will have > potentially millions of people that will want to copy your idea if it > is really good. So the concern about a few judges copying your idea is > almost mute. You could argue that Google copied Yahoo and Altavista > the idea of creating a search engine. > > On May 7, 1:47 pm, cybohemia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hmmm...I thought I had clicked send but that was a few hours ago and > > it hadn't posted...apologies in advance if I'm being trigger happy and > > should wait a bit longer... > > > --- > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
