89 messages in com.googlegroups.android-challenge[android-challenge] Re: Android/Apple...
FromSent OnAttachments
tberthel28 Apr 2008 12:30 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 12:42 
Kevin Galligan28 Apr 2008 12:44 
tberthel28 Apr 2008 12:47 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 12:50 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 12:51 
tberthel28 Apr 2008 12:54 
tberthel28 Apr 2008 12:55 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 13:01 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 13:17 
Kevin Galligan28 Apr 2008 13:18 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 15:02 
Kevin Galligan28 Apr 2008 15:17 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 16:18 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 16:21 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 17:05 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 17:24 
Cow Bay28 Apr 2008 17:31 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 18:10 
Cow Bay28 Apr 2008 18:11 
Cow Bay28 Apr 2008 18:57 
Kevin Galligan28 Apr 2008 19:12 
tberthel28 Apr 2008 20:57 
tberthel28 Apr 2008 20:59 
Kevin Galligan28 Apr 2008 21:01 
Chris28 Apr 2008 21:24 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 21:33 
Kevin Galligan28 Apr 2008 21:41 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 21:58 
Muthu Ramadoss28 Apr 2008 21:59 
Muthu Ramadoss28 Apr 2008 22:00 
Kevin Galligan28 Apr 2008 22:02 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 22:19 
Muthu Ramadoss28 Apr 2008 22:23 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 22:24 
Muthu Ramadoss28 Apr 2008 22:32 
Incognito28 Apr 2008 23:00 
Muthu Ramadoss28 Apr 2008 23:06 
Shane Isbell28 Apr 2008 23:07 
Muthu Ramadoss28 Apr 2008 23:14 
Chris28 Apr 2008 23:25 
Chris28 Apr 2008 23:30 
Muthu Ramadoss28 Apr 2008 23:37 
Incognito29 Apr 2008 00:00 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 02:21 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 02:25 
Hielko29 Apr 2008 05:06 
Muthu Ramadoss29 Apr 2008 08:32 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 10:00 
Kevin Galligan29 Apr 2008 10:18 
Chris29 Apr 2008 10:43 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 11:00 
Chris29 Apr 2008 11:41 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 12:30 
Incognito29 Apr 2008 12:33 
Kevin Galligan29 Apr 2008 13:12 
Izard29 Apr 2008 14:26 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 14:50 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 14:52 
Izard29 Apr 2008 17:11 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 19:50 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 20:00 
Hielko29 Apr 2008 20:26 
Izard29 Apr 2008 20:34 
Izard29 Apr 2008 20:45 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 20:50 
tberthel29 Apr 2008 20:58 
Izard29 Apr 2008 21:06 
Incognito29 Apr 2008 21:15 
Izard29 Apr 2008 21:22 
Kevin Galligan29 Apr 2008 21:25 
Living Sword29 Apr 2008 21:28 
Incognito30 Apr 2008 00:05 
Incognito30 Apr 2008 00:09 
Chris30 Apr 2008 00:20 
Izard30 Apr 2008 03:53 
Hielko30 Apr 2008 04:45 
Muthu Ramadoss30 Apr 2008 05:57 
Chris30 Apr 2008 08:05 
Muthu Ramadoss30 Apr 2008 08:23 
Chris30 Apr 2008 08:39 
tberthel30 Apr 2008 09:02 
Peli30 Apr 2008 09:09 
Peli30 Apr 2008 09:13 
Finn Kennedy30 Apr 2008 09:29 
Dan Morrill30 Apr 2008 18:15 
Kevin30 Apr 2008 21:29 
Kevin30 Apr 2008 21:31 
Hielko01 May 2008 01:18 
Subject:[android-challenge] Re: Android/Applets/J2ME
From:Izard (izar@gmail.com)
Date:04/29/2008 09:22:59 PM
List:com.googlegroups.android-challenge

Good point, I've forgotten there are blessed countries on the globe where such thing exists. Here in New Zealand where operators capital costs should be amortized on the revenue generated by tiny population unlimited plans are unlikely to appear in the foreseeable future :(

On Apr 30, 4:16 pm, Incognito <andr@yahoo.com> 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.

Not if you have an unlimited data plan.

On Apr 30, 12:06 am, Izard <izar@gmail.com> 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.

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)

And being a successful mobile gaming platform(read: having tens of good games ready) is especially important when platform starts (later when Android is successful ISVs will take care of that and port hundreds of games). So the entry like "gaming library", or "classic games collection" are doing exactly that: placing tens of good games (or tool to create them) on the table now when platform needs it. So could be a good competitor to more sophisticated and innovative games, but there are very few of them. (What else besides Wifi army and Parallel Kingdoms by the way?)

On Apr 30, 12:06 am, Hielko <hie@tweakers.net> 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 <trav@hotmail.com> 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 <andr@yahoo.com> 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 <trav@hotmail.com> wrote:

Can you think of a submission that uses more Android features than mine?

On Apr 28, 10:58 pm, tberthel <trav@hotmail.com> 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 <andr@yahoo.com> 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" <nmlg@gmail.com> 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" <andr@yahoo.com> To: "Android Challenge" <andr@googlegroups.com> 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" <nmlg@gmail.com> 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" <andr@yahoo.com> To: "Android Challenge" <andr@googlegroups.com> 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 to Objective-C, thus porting the changes over to Objective-C.

Even if objective-C has every language feature of Java, and is

...

read more »

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Android Challenge" group. To post to this group, send email to andr@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
andr@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/android-challenge?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---