Question/Poll for the Community: Extend Deadline?

[Dan Morrill]

Hello, everyone!

There have been quite a few postings on this forum from developers who have mentioned that the March 3rd deadline for the Developer Challenge seems tight, or that they think they could do a better job if they had more time.

We definitely want everyone to feel like they have the time they need to produce the best submission they possibly can, so I thought I would just go ahead and ask everybody:

Would you like more time for the Developer Challenge?

I can't promise anything, but if the consensus is that you guys could use more time, then we can look into extending the deadline.  Please comment on this thread (or email me directly if you like) to let me know how you feel, either way.

Thanks!

- Dan

[Dan U.]

Personally, I don't need it. I'm a single person team and already have
4 submissions almost ready to submit. They are fairly well polished
too. I have had lots of extra time to spend on this though, probably
more than others.

[Kyara]

Hello,

Depending on the feasibility of implemented ideas, implementations can take
significantly variable time even if the designer(s) work diligently and
smartly.

I think that idea itself should take much more weight than other parts (eg.
UI decoration or polishing).

If an idea is worth $270k or millions, even if it is not implemented
completely and polishedly in such a short period of time, it should get
higher scores than those worthless ones that are very well polished and
decorated.

So, my 1c of this makes me think it is ok but unnecessary to extend the
time.

After all, what Google wants is something good for business. It is an issue
of "idea, idea, idea", isn't it?

--Kyara

[ravdog]

"Yes" for the following reasons:
1) Will give the "weekend developers" (part/hobby time) a more
realistic shot at the challenge
2) Allowing more time to explore the SDK will only help opening up
applications to newer ideas or smarter mechanisms
3) The extra time is bound to serve the SDK well in terms of testing
as the community is likely to find more issues that they can be
reported

On Jan 21, 5:04 pm, "Dan Morrill" <morri...@google.com> wrote:

[Dan U.]

You have some good points, although I expect that regardless of
whether the finish date is extended, people will still be testing the
sdk heavily in preparation for Challenge 2.

From a testing standpoint, as some people have pointed out, it's
expected that there will be 750+ submissions. That's definitely a lot
to go through if the intention is to give them a proper amount of
testing. I know some people would be disappointed, but leaving the
finish date the way it is might help weed out more of the less worthy
submissions.

[Kyara]

Oops...sorry for the typo in my prior msg~ ~ ~ it should be "those
*lessworth* ones" instead of "those worthless ones" that may read kinda
disobliging.

[ajd]

IMO , not necessary. Two months is enough time. I didn't know java
(came from c#) and I am already in the polishing stage of my app
(doing 2 to 4 hrs work a day).
If a mobile application requires more than 2 months to complete, that
application may be more suited for the 2nd challenge when actual
phones are available.
Besides, it is a little bit unfair for us that are able to beat the
deadline. We have planned specifically for the original deadline.
If we knew the deadline will be moved we may have a different
development strategy.

[Dan U.]

I definitely agree. I've probably averaged around 3-4 hours per day.
It's also been longer than just 2 months, since the competition was
announced in November as I recall.

[ravdog]

"
> Ibf a mobile application requires more than 2 months to complete, that

> application may be more suited for the 2nd challenge when actual

> phones are availale.
"
I assumed Challenge I is a pre-requisite to Challenge II? You seem to
think otherwise. Clarification guys?

On Jan 21, 7:10 pm, ajd <doming...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> IMO , not necessary. Two months is enough time. I didn't know java
> (came from c#) and I am already in the polishing stage of my app
> (doing 2 to 4 hrs work a day).

> Ibf a mobile application requires more than 2 months to complete, that

> application may be more suited for the 2nd challenge when actual

> phones are availale.

[Dan U.]

As I understand it, Challenge I is not a pre-requisite, however there
are 2 stages to Challenge I and stage 1 is a pre-requisite for stage
2.

[Shane Isbell]

+1 for extending the deadline. I suppose if it were just a client application, I would feel more comfortable with the deadline. For me, however, its always been a rush, particularly since I have server components that need to be built out and tested. Also an extended deadline allows things such as early releases and validation of apps in the community, with the potential to incorporate feedback before submitting.

 

Shane

[Dan U.]

I think it's definitely possible to do server components in this time
frame as well. In fact, all 4 of my submissions use a server not only
for servicing client requests, but also for the user to browse in
their browser.

The only reason I can come up with for me needing an extension is
because there are issues with android that I think need addressed. For
instance, http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/thread/d792de7b2d6402f0
is threatening to make my all of my submissions crash.

On Jan 21, 7:40 pm, "Shane Isbell" <shane.isb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for extending the deadline. I suppose if it were just a client
> application, I would feel more comfortable with the deadline. For me,
> however, its always been a rush, particularly since I have server components
> that need to be built out and tested. Also an extended deadline allows
> things such as early releases and validation of apps in the community, with
> the potential to incorporate feedback before submitting.
>
> Shane
>

[Viktor Marohnić]

Three months was enough to come up and present an idea.
We are company and we are working on our submission now for a month
and a half.
We have planned whole project two months ago so that it could fit in
this time frame.
Extending deadline at this moment does not sound too good to us :)
Viktor.

[Chris]

Another vote here for extending the deadline.

I pose this question: are we being tested on our ability to quickly
code, or our ability to build ambitious disruptive applications?

Pushing back the date might not be popular with the early birds, but
it will certainly give smaller teams a chance to follow through on
their grand visions. Why penalize the little guys who are thinking
big, building complex server side features, and integrating multiple
technologies?

Chris

[Nanard]

I also don't need more time for my application.

But I DO need TTS.

It would be good if you could produce 1 or 2 SDK release (including
more and more features, not necessary speed improvement) before march.

[DJ~]

Personally, I'd appreciate an extension.

I heard about the competition late, and have been considering
scrambling together a submission--but there's a lot of design and and
implementation work to do and very little time. An extension of
another month or two months would encourage us to put together a solid
submission.

[Peli]

Hi Dan,

What kind of time-frame are we talking about?

* If you mean a day more, then this person would be happy:
http://groups.google.com/group/android-challenge/browse_frm/thread/f1d664a72e5103aa/5b8a04d5adf1373f#5b8a04d5adf1373f

* If you are talking about a couple of days, this could give people
final time to test and debug their applications and to write the
readme file required for submission (of course only if this extension
is not announced too early). It would be good to accept submissions
that merely failed prior to deadline because the servers were all
completely overloaded. Adding 24 hours spontaneously could help.

* If you are talking about a couple of weeks or even months, then I
think you are running a different competition. People had time to plan
their applications accordingly, and for some even adding a year would
not be enough. People who have that large projects should aim for
challenge II.

* Of course, if you plan to release an SDK update 2 weeks before
submission deadline, that would not be very nice. Give us evening and
weekend fighters at least a month to adapt to a new SDK version.
(things may fail and larger applications have to be carefully debugged
again...)
So adding two weeks for a new SDK version would be fair.

I for myself have not slept too much since the challenge started, so I
was looking forward to some peaceful days after March 3, so don't let
me suffer a couple of weeks more (that would not be nice to my family
and my dog)..

Cheers,
Peli

On Jan 22, 2:04 am, "Dan Morrill" <morri...@google.com> wrote:

[Nanard]

Some precision :
I work on my project around 2-3 hours almost every night !
I have a regular job & family. So it's a bit hard to find time for my
Android project.

Of course more time would be good, but I think I can finish for
march. More time would only be necessary for optimization, and have a
better documentation.

[Zorg]

Hello,
Thank your for asking this question.

Indeed 3 month and a half is short.
I might say whatever the extension given, it may never be enough :)

on the other hand if you move it by 1w or 2 It will definitely help to
be sure everything is fine and fix the last hour issue and submit more
confidently.
Giving more than 1w or 2 might be counterproductive.

While still aiming at end of feb, I vote "yes" for quality, comfort
and peace of mind :) not features
Z

On Jan 22, 2:04 am, "Dan Morrill" <morri...@google.com> wrote:

[Peli]

Another suggestion:

The longer we hobbyists work in our free-time, the more man-hours are
invested from our side to increase the value of software available for
Android.

It would therefore only be fair if Google increased the number of
grants and the total award sum to the same extent as the duration of
the competition is extended.

Peli
(PS: Yes, that means paying some penalty for shipping the SDK update
late ;-) )

On Jan 22, 2:04 am, "Dan Morrill" <morri...@google.com> wrote:

[tomgibara]

Dan,

I appreciate you taking the time to canvas the opinions of challenge
entrants. These are my views, including some responses to comments
already posted.

First, some trivia: Cheetahs are recognized as the fastest land
mammal; a typical cheetah can outpace any human over a straight 100
metre sprint, this is in-part because it has four powerful legs to a
man's two. But interestingly, many men and women can outpace cheetahs
over 10 metres because of the delay caused to the cheetah by
organizing all of its four legs.

Those people who think that extending the deadline will benefit
smaller teams and individuals may want to reflect on that. As a future
solo entrant I don't want to see the deadline extended for reasons of
self interest that are obvious from the above, but there are other
more important reasons too.

Designing and implementing a software system or application is always
undertaken in the context of a jumble of constraints, one of which is
always the time available. If developers have not the skill to design
their software so that it may be implemented before the deadline* then
it is unfortunate. But extending it is unfair to those who do; why
should someone who appropriately chose to implement a more modest
application be subsequently penalized.

I think Peli puts it very well when he says that "If you are talking

about a couple of weeks or even months, then I think you are running a

different competition." He's right. If you extended the competition by
one month, some people might be satisfied, but suppose you reduced the
prize money by a third, what would the response be then? From the
perspective of effort vs. expected reward, these two changes are
almost equivalent. Its only human psychology that causes our response
to differ, but that doesn't make such changes any more fair.

This isn't to say that I don't have sympathy with developers who
express concerns. I think there are two things which are causing most
of the angst. One is that it has not been made clear (at least to me)
the degree to which applications are expected to be functionally
complete at the point at which they are submitted. The other is the
lack of APIs and emulator functionality that are required for various
applications. I, however, don' t think that these issues will be
resolved with more competition time.

Finally, I am reminded of Parkinson's wonderful aphorism "Work expands
to fill the time available for its completion", that alone should
cause everyone to think twice about extending the deadline
significantly.

* I certainly do not excuse myself from this criticism :)

[nick fox]

I think 3+ months is more than enough time for the challenge. Having a
hard deadline is motivational. If it's important to you, you'll meet
the deadline. That's the way programming is today. Small teams and
rapid iterations.

Nick

[Todd Lee]

I share the opinion that a time extension is not necessary.

If an entrant isn't ready for ACD I (part 1 and 2) there's always ADC II.

Thanks

 

Todd

 

---

All new Yahoo! Mail -

---

Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.

[SungSuh Park]

I don't nned extending the deadline.
I am also developing a application that need server part.
Maybe it's not enough time to make complete appliacation before March
3rd.
But I can submit mobile part with test data included.
I think it's not a big problem if I could show them a what the
application is..
And server part work could be done after March 3rd for next phase..

But Challenge 1 is

[bd]

I vote for an extension. I, too, only found out about the challenge
six weeks in, and have a job, family, and classes to attend to. While
I understand The simple fact is that an extension is not going to hurt
corporate teams, or the early risers who already have four polished
submissions, but it may significantly help people like me, who have
never attempted a major server-client app, and who have never worked
with mobile devices, but who got extremely excited by the
possibilities the android stack offers.

If a team is ready to go in March, that is great- I can't imagine the
software is perfect, so tune it up and you have lost nothing. Or, if
you feel there is nothing left to do, take a break and be happy. The
platform and the community is only going to be stronger for having
more engaging entries- it does does Google the most good to have a
pool of the best applications, not the most rapidly completed.

[efon...@gmail.com]

Hey Dan,

Thank you for the offer... Looking out for Google's best interest,
lost time almost always translates into lost revenue at mature demand.
So if this model is correct, and the information gained from the
Challenge is on the critical path, one week delay now translates into
one week of lost ad revenue at mature demand. What will the weekly ad
revenue from Android applications be 3 years from now? This model
says "that much money disappears if we slip the schedule a week now."

If I understand the goals of the Challenge correctly, an alternative
approach may address time constraint concerns while increasing the
beneficial effects of the Challenge:

Set the bar for the first stage low enough to accept product
definition entrants.

This can provide feedback to Google's team on where small but
significant operating system feature improvements can increase the
'Wow!' factor. This will win handset endorsements and decrease time to
market acceptance, or in this case market ubiquitous-ness. Don't move
the date. Lower the bar. Get crucially great stuff into the OS in
time for part II.

Google is great at cooperation. This approach sets the stage for great
cooperation going forward. That means better stuff sooner.

Ed

[Renato]

Yes Please!

I would request extensions for the following reasons:
1) Learning about the platform takes 1 month (considering the novelty of it and the limited examples of good completed applications)
2) Coming up with a good idea and design takes 1 month
3) Programming, testing about 2 months

And this is just for a prototype app, not the polished ones.

Therefore, I think the time is actually quite limited. I don't see any issues for people doing this full time, but for the rest of us who have day job it is a bit of an issue.

I would suggest moving the deadline 3-4 weeks.

Thanks

Renato

[sixty88]

My vote is against any delay or extension. As it is, I've already
committed a tremendous amount of personal time and effort to this
contest and was comfortable knowing that there was a fixed end point.
Beyond the prize, I'm using the contest to help judge if I want to
start a new business based on the android platform. The sooner I can
get to that decision point, the better.

For those that still want to compete but won't be ready by March,
there are other phases to the competition with significantly bigger
dollar values. Take your time, make a good app, and enter in that
one.

[DJ~]

Behind cheetah theory tomgibara put forward, there may be an implied
assumption that an entries chance of winning increases linearly with
production quality. That is, large teams and companies that can afford
to invest considerable resources, but that work methodologically and
avoid risk, will gain a greater advantage with an extension.

One thing that I haven't quite figured out, though, is how important
production quality will be to the end judges. Chances are, the best
quality submissions will be ports from existing mobile phone games.
But we wouldn't expect these ports to win prizes over an innovative
idea, right?

The way the competition is setup, it suggests that google is expecting
to receive, in the first round, prototypes that simply demonstrate
ideas--the more innovative and bold, the better. The prize money might
then be used to invest in the project, and turn those ideas into
progressively more complete products. So, while the final round of the
first competition is in the middle of the year, the winning products
might not actually be complete before until the end of the year (or
whenever a sufficient number of android phones are sold).

If we see the competition in those terms, then the amount of time
allowed for the first entries should be at least enough to take a new
and bold idea, and bring it to a demonstrable, but incomplete, state.
For me, the time remaining isn't quite sufficient. But I have one of
those bold and innovative ideas, one that I'm willing to spend my time
and money on for a chance in the android lottery -- basically because
traditional funding schemes may not work particularly well for this
idea. This competition may represent a kind of alternative funding
model; curiously enough owing to the fact that I may see some overlap
between what I'm proposing to do, and the general google outlook on
things.

Now, I don't know if the judges will see the competition the way I'm
suggesting they might. But if they do; I wouldn't be too worried about
large teams and companies stealing the thunder from after hours
programmers -- because, at least in the first round, it'll be all
about ideas, and potential; and for those you just need guts and
guile.

Furthermore, also consider that the prize money is quite small
compared to the cost of a programming team, or the potential returns
of a commercial product. Businesses, I imagine, are more likely to
want to play it slow with Android to begin with, port what they can do
cheaply, and see how the market progresses, rather than taking a
plunge with the competition. Meaning that it's just us risk-takers
here, accidental members of the worldwide google skunk-works. Surely
there can be room for one or two more ideas in the competition?

[RagingBender]

We would rather stick to the existing schedule. Our project
selection, planning, and development have all been based on the
originally published schedule.

[ajd]

I want to underline what tomgibara has wrote:

"Designing and implementing a software system or application is
always
undertaken in the context of a jumble of constraints, one of which is
always the time available. "

Also, extending the deadline will make some of us think negatively of
the challenge, i.e. there are already applications favored to win that
can't make the deadline, or there are serious internal problems
regarding android, or ...hmmm...

> > - Dan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Zorg]

I tend to agree with tomgibara.

On the pure egoist side a bit more time is always good, but
about the challenge spirit itself:
There is memory and speed constraints induced by the emulated
device...
There is time constraints induced by the deadline...
Extending the deadline seems like a bad idea, it reduces the
"Constraints induced creativity".

Z

[ajd]

Dan Morrill,

Why not wait for the number of applications submitted 1 week prior to
the original deadline, before making a decision?
If the number is significatnt (maybe 300 to 700) why extend the
deadline?

Reasons like 'I just heard of the challenge n weeks ago' should not be
valid reasons to extend the deadline. There will always be people who
just 'heard the challenge last week' even if you extend the deadline
for 1 year.
There is always Challenge II where they can join (lots of time for
their complicated apps to finish).

It will be very unfair for many of us who sacrificed a lot of sleep,
paid work, family hours, etc. just to make the deadline.
Extending the deadline might also have a negative connotation.
Are there applications already favored to win that cannot make the
deadline?
Or is the Android SDK seriously flawed (I doubt this 'cause my app is
almost complete ) ?

Please count first the submissions that are able to make the deadline.
If there will only be 50 submissions that cannot make the deadline by
all means extend it. Otherwise, if there are only a few (50 or less?)
that cannot make it, why extend the deadline in favor of the few?

[Kyara]

your point makes sense...

to be selfish and not too selfish, I vote for a short extension no more than
a month.

[Vipin Kumar]

Hi,

It is definetly helpful for a person like me who is writing code over night and testing on weekends. I am in favour of it.

Best Regards
Vipin

[Chris]

How about a middle ground and push things back by just a month? This
would allow ambitious part-timers to have a few extra weeks but
clearly wouldn't indicate an indefinite extension. It really would be
terrible if the entries are primarily just high quality but uninspired
ports from established companies, or toned down applications from
small developers rushing to meet a deadline (not saying this will be
the case, but it certainly skews things this way).

The NUMBER ONE thing I, as well as many others seemingly would like to
know, is the basis for judging. Do you care if we use canned data or
if the server side isn't working? What weight do you give to actual
implementation? I know there is no one size fits all answer for this,
but some indication would be helpful.

[jtaylor]

Hello All!

+ 1. Those who want to submit great apps are in danger of being
Penalized if the deadline is not extended. Remember that there was an
implicit "promise" that one could build serious apps for the
Challenge. Apps that people will use alot and have never been seen
before. It's not enough time to build those.

In my own mind, I really believe I can build what I want to. My
feelings and intellect tell me I have just enough time. But that's not
the way it works in software development. If 1 month is enough time
then 2 months is the REAL time.

If the new SDK comes out, how long will it take to learn it? How much
of your programs will you need to change? One extra Api may change the
whole paradigm of your app. Then you might get Zero points because
you're not following Android.

The Android Team needs to take their time more in getting the platform
up to speed, that platform that starts the Mobile Revolution. So for
the sake of the platform and for the business side of the apps
themselves, the Challenge should most definitively be extended.

And as Peli said, I'm sure Google would be gracious enough to double
or triple the Prizes. Or possibly even Quaduple it.

- Juan

[da...@fourtenmedia.com]

Im just starting to get the feel of the Android SDK, so the time i
could get, the more i could be able to do.

However, I think the deadline is good because it forces us to develop
things and not waste time. So I vote no, but I dont mind much either
way. It would be nice to see the contest submissions as soon as
possible because im excited to see what everyone comes up with.

-daniel

[edpark]

Hi Dan, thanks for asking whether we need a time extension!

I'll be honest, as a challenger I was initially inclined to say no to
an extension to give myself better odds vs other challengers :) but it
might not be a bad idea for extra time if the emphasis is on quality
feature-rich submissions. I'm [completely] guessing that the next SDK
release is going to be within the next 10 days which would leave about
a month's time for everyone to regress their applications and
incorporate new features that I'm speculating will be delivered in
that SDK release. A month (~30 days) is kind of tight to do this work
but entirely possible - it'll require everyone to make some hard
decisions on the extent of functionality they think they can deliver
within that time frame (which is still going to be true even with an
extension). I have a strategy for either eventuality - if the time is
extended I get to add more features or create another entry but if the
deadline stays as it is I release only the features I know are solid.
So, personally, I don't need an extension but I'll adjust if you do/
don't!

[Living Sword]

I vote for sticking to the original deadline.

[Jacob]

Hi, Dan,

We do not need to extend the deadline.

Also, I think it is good to stick to the current deadline as quite a
few developers/teams are making plans for the March 3rd deadline.
Changing the deadline seems not fair to these good planners.

Thanks,
Jacob

[ian]

Thank you Dan for the proposal.

Once the game has started more than half way, it is not good or fair
to change the rules. Developers have made decision and strategy based
on the rules and best targeted at the given time. I'm against it but
it is always welcome if Google would set up another $? contest for the
developers that would come up with master pieces later.

[rong]

No need. Three month is enough!

[ncsolution]

+1 for extension. I found out about the project 2 weeks ago so an
extension would be helpful in term of testing and implementing better
functionality. I think an extension would also benefit Google and
create a healthier competition since there will be more submission and
the appl would be richer, better tested which means more innovation
and better quality. I also think an extension would make people who
already submitted to go back and put more work into their submission
or submit more entry, both of which create a healthy competition. For
any decision, we will always have people on both side of the table,
and for those who oppose, please keep in mind that software dev is all
about responding to changes and we all know there is never a project
where the parameter stay constant
Thanks and good luck
p

[Amos]

Here's another for extending the submission date!

I totally understand the problems and "injustice" inherent in
postponing the deadline at this time, but I would personally benefit
much from another week or two of time to work (juggling university,
work, family and android during the rest of the day has made it hard
to give my project all the attention it deserves). I assume many are
in a similar situation.

I feel I have a very good idea, but am worried that my project will
not be polished and robust enough by submission time to make the
people assessing my entry fully appreciate my original idea. If given
more time, I will use it to address these issues.
Assuming there are more people who feel the same, this will translate
to more good ideas and implementations coming through and being
appreciated.

I also think that the overall negative effect of postponing the
deadline by a week or two are negligible.

Thanks for asking us, Dan!

Amos

[?]

whether to extend the time or not is ok to me, but i am some confused with
the "theory of fairness".

during any possible extension, everybody can choose to take a rest or to
keep polishing work for more scores.

so, i would like to weakly+weakly question where the fairness comes from :?

----- Original Message -----
From: "ian" <shenj...@gmail.com>
To: "Android Challenge" <android-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:20 PM
Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Question/Poll for the Community: Extend
Deadline?

>

[ddm]

Serious developers have their time planned. If developer decided to
spend a month or two for the project and then get a feedback in a
month it's one story. The other story is deadline overruled, and the
developer is questioning himself if he's gonna spend another month or
stood up the project and wait more time for feedback as feedback could
be decisive. Last approach is not fair.

[Shane Isbell]

I pondered the same question. I don't mind that many people don't want to bump the deadline, but using the fairness argument strikes me as strange. What I gather is that some developers who entered the contest early don't think it is fair that other developers, who are entering late or who have more ambitious ideas, could edge them out of the prize. So it's a simple issue. Changing the rules puts some developers at a disadvantage: "not fair".

 

Of course, the same argument could be leveled by those who do have better ideas but not the time. They could say it's not fair that mediocre applications win, just because the developers entered the competition a couple of months earlier. Really is has nothing to do with fairness, just advantage. But for most developers, it won't matter anyway, they won't get the prize and even a number of those that do will get squashed flat by the big players, many of whom will enter quite late: not fair! 

 

Shane

[ajd]

Our team had several ideas. We trashed the other ideas, not because
they are worse than what we have chosen to do, but just because we
thought those ideas will not be able to make the deadline. We assumed
that the deadline will not change. It is part of the terms and
conditions, a contract in a way. If we knew beforehand that the
deadline will be extended, we would have chosen another project, one
with much more chances of winning, in our opinion.

Whatever name this contest is called, this is a contest, a contest is
a contest. Protagonists are competing to win. A contest has pre-
determined rules. This contest officially starts last Jan 2. You do
not change the rule in the middle of a contest to favor any of the
protagonist. Of course nobody can stop Google to extend the dealine.
However there will be negative implications, at least in my mind and
my opinion: are there applications that are already winning but cannot
make it on time? Was the original deadline deliberately made tight so
that we will have less time and less chance against those favored
applications and that it just so happened that those favored
applications did not make the deadline so they are extending it?

For those that cannot make the deadline, there is always the challenge
II. You'll get a lot of time. Your great and ambitious idea will have
another chance. Of course, being a "great idea" is on the eyes of the
beholder, in this case the judges. So we cannot claim an idea to be
great beforehand.

Imagine in an official chess game that has time limit. One has a very
good winning chance and probably a winning position. But he has no
time left in his clock. He approaches the arbiter and asks "please
give me more time because I knew I can win this. I have a great idea
for my next move and I have a great position but I don't have time".

On Jan 23, 12:17 pm, "Shane Isbell" <shane.isb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I pondered the same question. I don't mind that many people don't want to
> bump the deadline, but using the fairness argument strikes me as strange.
> What I gather is that some developers who entered the contest early don't
> think it is fair that other developers, who are entering late or who have
> more ambitious ideas, could edge them out of the prize. So it's a simple
> issue. Changing the rules puts some developers at a disadvantage: "not
> fair".
>
> Of course, the same argument could be leveled by those who do have better
> ideas but not the time. They could say it's not fair that mediocre
> applications win, just because the developers entered the competition a
> couple of months earlier. Really is has nothing to do with fairness, just
> advantage. But for most developers, it won't matter anyway, they won't get
> the prize and even a number of those that do will get squashed flat by
> the big players, many of whom will enter quite late: not fair!
>
> Shane

> On Jan 23, 2008 10:55 AM, ? <kyara5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > whether to extend the time or not is ok to me, but i am some confused with
> > the "theory of fairness".
>
> > during any possible extension, everybody can choose to take a rest or to
> > keep polishing work for more scores.
>
> > so, i would like to weakly+weakly question where the fairness comes from
> > :?
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ian" <shenjiem...@gmail.com>
> > To: "Android Challenge" <android-...@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:20 PM
> > Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Question/Poll for the Community: Extend
> > Deadline?
>
> >  > Thank you Dan for the proposal.
>
> > > Once the game has started more than half way, it is not good or fair
> > > to change the rules. Developers have made decision and strategy based
> > > on the rules and best targeted at the given time.  I'm against it but
> > > it is always welcome if Google would set up another $? contest for the

> > > developers that would come up with master pieces later.- Hide quoted text -

[mickrobk]

While your right in that there is self interest driving a lot of these
posts, (mine too of course) that does not mean there is no fairness
issue.

Your argument can be applied infinitely, there will always be people
who just heard of the competition, and all the applications will be
getting better as time passes, with no end.Yet, it would not be fair
if the competition were to be moved back 2 years (I'm not suggesting
that google will actually do this, it's purely hypothetical). Why is
that?
Several people have already brought these points, I'm just
reiterating.

1. Peli put this well, but the money issue. Unless Google also
increases the prize money, it means we will be doing more work for the
same amount of money (probabilistic expected return, actually less,
since more applications will be entered) Economically, an extension is
the same as google cutting the prize money, would this be fair?
2. Developers made economic decisions as to how much time they could
put into this competition, I know I've missed freelance jobs as I
wanted to put time towards my android application and was under time
pressure. I've planned and developed based on a time frame with a
distinct and hard end, I don't think my girlfriend would be happy if I
spend another month ignoring her to work on the application for less
reward. Arguments that I can just leave my application for the extra
month don't make sense as that again greatly decreases my chances and
therefore the value of the work I've already done. Yes its a prize
based competition with no garentuee of reward, but if there were no
money, there would certainly not be as many developers, it obviously
means something. Assuming 5,000,000 in reward, and a 1/1200 chance of
winning (hopefully less :) but probably not significatly more). I can
expect to make about 4,000 from participating in this competition.
With another month of work and more applications, this decreases while
my hours spent increase. I'm not happy about my hourly worth being
retroactively decreased.
3. What is fairness except for for the idea that people are gaining
advantage, unbalancing the game?

The main point here is that my expected salary is being decreased
retroactively, and it forces me to either decide to walk away from any
potential reimbursement or to continue working for the lowered rate.
I also completely agree with tomgibara. Weekend developers (like me)
or even people just entering are not gaining an advantage here, but
losing it.

There is a second competition, I'm planning to enter it with a few new
applications I'm just starting. While my current application could use
more time, I don't want it, if it's not finished thats that, and it
will be good for the next one; I don't expect it to be at 100%, or
even 70, it's a large scope, hopefully the judges will still be able
to get an idea of it's potential, they are giving out grants to fund
further development after all.

An extra 2 days announces on March 1 I would like, but definitely not
another week.

I appreciate being asked,
Rob

On Jan 23, 12:17 pm, "Shane Isbell" <shane.isb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I pondered the same question. I don't mind that many people don't want to
> bump the deadline, but using the fairness argument strikes me as strange.
> What I gather is that some developers who entered the contest early don't
> think it is fair that other developers, who are entering late or who have
> more ambitious ideas, could edge them out of the prize. So it's a simple
> issue. Changing the rules puts some developers at a disadvantage: "not
> fair".
>
> Of course, the same argument could be leveled by those who do have better
> ideas but not the time. They could say it's not fair that mediocre
> applications win, just because the developers entered the competition a
> couple of months earlier. Really is has nothing to do with fairness, just
> advantage. But for most developers, it won't matter anyway, they won't get
> the prize and even a number of those that do will get squashed flat by
> the big players, many of whom will enter quite late: not fair!
>
> Shane

[Shane Isbell]

Fair enough. I'll grant that Rob and adj have some well reasoned arguments on the side of fairness, although I did know a chess player with a 2200 FIDE rating who lost to a 1500 player in a speed match. Sure it was fair, but who would you want to back in the long-term? 

 

From the sounds of some of the arguments, I do have concerns that the prize is the motativation for working on Android. How many developers, I wonder, will persist after the first round is over? Maybe google should move up the deadline, so we can get all this behind us.

 

Shane

[Dan U.]

For me, the prize is the main motivation. Had it not been there, I
would not be working with Android. I am trying to figure out what
happens after the competition, but my guess is that I'll be done and
the big players take over.

I don't mean to be too off topic here, but a lot of people who want
the extension seem to cite their jobs as a reason. How many people
have actually checked with their companies to make sure taking part in
this competition is actually ok? What little I know about IP law
suggests to me that the company you work for may have claims to your
submission.

On Jan 23, 12:23 pm, "Shane Isbell" <shane.isb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. I'll grant that Rob and adj have some well reasoned arguments
> on the side of fairness, although I did know a chess player with a 2200 FIDE
> rating who lost to a 1500 player in a speed match. Sure it was fair, but who
> would you want to back in the long-term?
>
> From the sounds of some of the arguments, I do have concerns that the prize
> is the motativation for working on Android. How many developers, I wonder,
> will persist after the first round is over? Maybe google should move up the
> deadline, so we can get all this behind us.
>
> Shane
>

[Shane Isbell]

On Jan 23, 2008 12:42 PM, Dan U. <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:

For me, the prize is the main motivation. Had it not been there, I
would not be working with Android. I am trying to figure out what
happens after the competition, but my guess is that I'll be done and
the big players take over.

I don't mean to be too off topic here, but a lot of people who want
the extension seem to cite their jobs as a reason. How many people
have actually checked with their companies to make sure taking part in
this competition is actually ok? What little I know about IP law
suggests to me that the company you work for may have claims to your
submission.

 

A lot of companies put such stipulations in their employee agreements but they are not enforceable (at least in the US). In reality, such rules only apply when the work you are doing for the employer either overlaps the outside work or the ideas you have are somehow derived from your employer's IP.

 

Shane

[Dan U.]

Well, I think you are incorrect, and I'll try to explain why I think
that...

When I was in college, we were required to take a class where
lecturers would come in from the IT business community and discuss
issues with IT. One was a well-seasoned IP lawyer from Hewlett-
Packard. She explained quite well how this all works. As I recall, she
only covered things that were patentable, so I don't know how it plays
out on things that aren't patentable. As she put it, the company owns
the patent if they want it. You can ask that they sign over rights to
it, but they don't have to. They also don't have to pay you anything
for it. The last company I worked for gave you $1 for your idea even
it if was worth millions.

To give you an idea how absurd it gets, this IP laywer gave our class
a rather bizzare example. She said if someone from HP had built a
scratching post for a cat that dispensed food when it was scratched,
that HP could own it if they wanted. Even though that has absolutely
nothing to do with HPs business, it's theirs if they want it.

On Jan 23, 12:49 pm, "Shane Isbell" <shane.isb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Shane Isbell]

She may have believed that, but I doubt she ever put it to the test in court.

 

Shane

On Jan 23, 2008 1:07 PM, Dan U. <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, I think you are incorrect, and I'll try to explain why I think
that...

When I was in college, we were required to take a class where
lecturers would come in from the IT business community and discuss
issues with IT. One was a well-seasoned IP lawyer from Hewlett-
Packard. She explained quite well how this all works. As I recall, she
only covered things that were patentable, so I don't know how it plays
out on things that aren't patentable. As she put it, the company owns
the patent if they want it. You can ask that they sign over rights to
it, but they don't have to. They also don't have to pay you anything
for it. The last company I worked for gave you $1 for your idea even
it if was worth millions.

To give you an idea how absurd it gets, this IP laywer gave our class
a rather bizzare example. She said if someone from HP had built a
scratching post for a cat that dispensed food when it was scratched,
that HP could own it if they wanted. Even though that has absolutely
nothing to do with HPs business, it's theirs if they want it.

[Shane Isbell]

On Jan 23, 2008 1:12 PM, Shane Isbell <shane....@gmail.com> wrote:

She may have believed that, but I doubt she ever put it to the test in court.

 

Shane

On Jan 23, 2008 1:07 PM, Dan U. <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, I think you are incorrect, and I'll try to explain why I think
that...

When I was in college, we were required to take a class where
lecturers would come in from the IT business community and discuss
issues with IT. One was a well-seasoned IP lawyer from Hewlett-
Packard. She explained quite well how this all works. As I recall, she
only covered things that were patentable, so I don't know how it plays
out on things that aren't patentable. As she put it, the company owns
the patent if they want it. You can ask that they sign over rights to
it, but they don't have to. They also don't have to pay you anything
for it. The last company I worked for gave you $1 for your idea even
it if was worth millions.

To give you an idea how absurd it gets, this IP laywer gave our class
a rather bizzare example. She said if someone from HP had built a
scratching post for a cat that dispensed food when it was scratched,
that HP could own it if they wanted. Even though that has absolutely
nothing to do with HPs business, it's theirs if they want it.

 

Was this class sponsored by your company that gave out dollar bills? ;)

[Dan U.]

Well, with a company as large as HP, It's hard to imagine she wasn't
involved in some way with a case like that.

For those who are wondering why a company (at least in the US) has
ownership of your ideas/patents, I believe the usual argument is that
resources were made available from the company to the employee that
may otherwise have been difficult or impossible to access. I'm not
sure who would be responsible for proving that, but I'm guessing the
employee. I know we were always told to write a journal of what we did
each day (and sign/date it) in a non-spiral bound notebook. Non-spiral
so that it couldn't be guessed that you tore pages out you didn't
like.

I will say this though, I very much dislike that the law is set up
this way, but I do think it is enforceable. Thankfully, I am self-
employed so it's not a problem.

On Jan 23, 1:12 pm, "Shane Isbell" <shane.isb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> She may have believed that, but I doubt she ever put it to the test in
> court.
>
> Shane

[Ecthelion]

Personally, I don't think this is necessary or even good. You would
discourage those who correctly selected a project that would fit for
the current deadline and lower their chances versus those projects
which basically were to big to be done until the deadline. Instead of
now extending the deadline I would vote for having a second round of
the competition with a longer deadline.

Just my 2 cents

[ajd]

Main motivation? What else but the prize.
Firstly, be aware that we are developing applications whose value is
only for this particular contest. Where else will our android
applications have value? There are no phones available yet where they
can run. You cannot rely on the future. There will always be
uncertainty even for big companies like Google. Who knows for sure if
these phones will really come out.
Secondly, if not for the prize, why join this contest? If not only for
the prize, then you can just continue developing and not submit your
application, no worries about the deadline. Why pursue beating the
deadline or extending the deadline? It does not matter, right? The
truth is that some wants to extend the deadline so they can join the
contest and win, guess for what, for the prize.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dan U.]

haha, actually no. I don't think I'll post the name of the dollar bill
company to protect the guilty. In fairness though, that policy may
have been for patents done on company time and for a particular
company policy. I do not know because I did not see the agreement,
which oddly enough, I thought would have been in the companies
employee handbook but I dont' think it was.

Probably it could come down to what state you live in as well. Perhaps
the state I live in is just the kind that sides with the company.

On Jan 23, 1:16 pm, "Shane Isbell" <shane.isb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2008 1:12 PM, Shane Isbell <shane.isb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > She may have believed that, but I doubt she ever put it to the test in
> > court.
>
> > Shane

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[cirion]

My vote: keep the current deadline. I agree with many of the comments
made above regarding the amount of time that is already available, the
planning that has been done, etc. Especially since March 3rd has been
referred to as a "hard" deadline. Especially since there's another
contest scheduled, it doesn't seem like it would hurt for the first
phase to wrap up as scheduled.

[AMGG]

Hi!


Obviously all teams who have started to develop the project in
November, or which are in advanced stages of their projects don't want
to extend the deadline.
And obviously the teams which are in a early stage of their projects
wants to extend it.

Of course all of us are excited about Android, but there are a big
amount of money, which is the real reclaim of this challenge (because
it's not necessary to be in the challenge to develop Android apps)

I appreciate a lot this idea to give us the chance to decide, but I
think this question depends on Google and not on developers.

The point is... what is expected from this challenge?

If Google wants to have 50 breaking apps to show for his new platform,
the best is to extend the deadline. Because the apps submitted in the
deadline will be more, and more defined.

If Google wants to have a bunch of small app's, preview of apps or
projects descriptions, and then, help with money to develop the 50
best of them, then the current deadline is ok.


Bye.


(sorry, if there are any english mistake in the post)

[Gil]

I would vote not to extend the deadline. If the deadline will be
extended I will probably benefit from some SDK bug fixes in the next
version of the SDK. Right now I would have to explain in the
submission document why certain features don't work.

[cuteandroid]

I vote for an extension, e.g., to end of March. It would be helpful
for all participants to produce higher quality submissions.

[Marc]

+1 for an extension

Marc

[klakkara]

I too would vote "Yes" to the extension, for two main reasons (all of
which have been more or less presented before in this thread).

1) There are some features/issues/bugs with the API that I hope will
be fixed in the later releases. Our team will need time to learn about
and utilize these features.
2) My small team is struggling with juggling kids, school, and work.

Thanks for asking for opinions from the community!

-Kiran

[John]

I too would like to vote yes for an extension--mostly for the same
reasons as ravdog (particularly his first point).

John

[Rajesh Battala]

I too like to vote for extending the date.. it will be very nice if the date got extended.
thanks

[Peli]

I would vote against voting on this issue.

Right now, if 100 will vote no and 200 will vote yes for a 1 month
extension, then
in a month 200 will vote no, and 300 will vote yes for a 1 month
extension, then
after that 300 will vote no, and 500 will vote yes for a 1 month
extension, then
another month later 400 will vote no, and 600 will vote yes for
another 1 month extension,
later 500 may vote no, but 700 yes for an extension.. and so on.

The number of those who are not quite ready yet would always outnumber
the number of those who are ready to submit.

I wonder: those who would like to vote yes for an extension now:
Suppose you manage to bring your application in shape due to the extra
month, what would you tell those people that started coding in the mid
of February and ask for another extension then to increase the value
of the all applications? Would you agree to yet another month of
extension then as well?

Those who argue because of the better SDK that would be available,
would you argue for a longer extension if the one feature you have
been waiting for has still not been implemented in the upcoming SDK
update? (be it bluetooth, speech recognition, widget or network fixes,
automatic screen orientation notification, support of multiple layout
sizes & internationalization, conflicting intent prioritization, exact
definition of compass and orientation sensors, ... )

Put in another way, I think I've been running an uphill marathon for
30 kilometers, another 10 kilometers to go, and now people ask to
extend the marathon by another 10 kilometers, because they only
entered the marathon after kilometer 20.

I'd say, get in shape for the next marathon, but don't change rules in
the middle of the game.

Peli

[Peli]

> although I did know a chess player with a 2200 FIDE
> rating who lost to a 1500 player in a speed match. Sure it was fair, but who
> would you want to back in the long-term?

Given an ***infinite*** amount of time, the thousand best entries
would definitely all be open source projects, with billions of
contributors each, implementing a million of ideas none of us has ever
dreamed of.

Single contributors or people in a small team (say, less than ten
thousand contributors) won't have any chance then...

By the way, those open source projects would have completely
restructured the Android platform, and it would run on GNU Hurd's
grand-child successor instead of Linux.

Any winning contributor would then win less then 0.001 cent for their
contribution.

Peli :-)

[Alex Pisarev]

Definetely not, as it won't be very fair to the guys who already
created their project plans and working hard towards them. I mean if I
realise that I didn't have to work my eyes and brains off over the
long weekend in order to fit to my project plan while others didn't,
that wouldn't bring very much comfort to me. Actually, I think it will
be much better if second round timeframes could be extended though.

[Zorg]

Are we coding for ourselves ?
Are we coding to promote the plateform in the best way possible ?
Adding one week will benefit both developers and the plateform at the
same time especially because this week was not supposed to exist when
we started.

In any case, even(may be particularly) for the best Android developer,
we can assume the following as being... true^H^H^H^H not false :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias
http://books.google.com/books?id=HeAFTrDFlbkC&pg=PA12&dq=%22This+optimism+contributes+to+what%22&ei=jZeYR9O3IJzUzASS7bnbCA&sig=f_npYjcJqDyGvbHKYYCTFMQIvFg

Arguments about "I could have chosen to do something else if I knew we
had 2 more week", I don't believe it.
(1 month and I understand the argument)
one week or two on a good submition will make it really good
one week or two on a super cool submition will make it owesome
one week or two on a two month late project will not change a lot of
things but it will give it a chance to be visible and maybe the killer
app of all time will be this one.

Arguments about losing job-karma-points + family-hours in solo early
investment transforming you into an Andoidaholic (I recognize myself
here)
compared to people just starting are valid but the 1week as the cherry
on the cake might be a good way to be sure this huge personal
investment was not for nothing and would help to "secure it".

This could be considered somehow as an early reward from Google,
Something like:
"Hey, we know how hard it is to create Great-just-isn't-good-enough
stuff... you invested so much energy into it,
here is one more week, take a day off, relax, walk the dog, feed the
cat, go to the swiming pool,
then come back, double check, fix, adjust and recheck then submit, we
need really good apps, and we'll take all the time
required to evaluate each one of them."

Z

[Shane Isbell]

I think we have beaten this topic to death. It looks as though there is no consensus, so let's just call the vote as failed and move on with programming.

Shane

[planner]

@Dan U
You may list your projects at http://openandroids.com/2007/12/22/android-developer-challenge-entries/

On Jan 21, 7:26 pm, "Dan U." <dan.ul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I don't need it. I'm a single person team and already have
> 4 submissions almost ready to submit. They are fairly well polished
> too. I have had lots of extra time to spend on this though, probably
> more than others.

[planner]

I don't think it's really necessary to extend the deadline. I think a
better idea would be to set 3-5 grants for incomplete projects that
"show promise", and give those projects the second part of the
Challenge to finish up

--
Boudia
http://openandroids.com
--

[Dan U.]

planner,

Thanks, I'll consider listing them there when I do a bit more
polishing and testing.

On Jan 24, 10:11 am, planner <i...@openandroids.com> wrote:
> @Dan U

> You may list your projects athttp://openandroids.com/2007/12/22/android-developer-challenge-entries/

> > > - Dan- Hide quoted text -

[jtaylor]

I'm changing my vote from +1 previously to -1.

After thinking more about it.. We actually do have two months. By
March 3rd the apps don't really have to be completely finished. That's
why the second phase is there. By March 3rd the Potential of the app
should be clearly seen though. And assuming "Potential" means quality
of the code and those other points of how it will be judged. Also
Android is easier than other things, architectually speaking at least.
I suspect that it does make development go faster in some architectual
sense.

- Juan


On Jan 22, 12:04 pm, jtaylor <juan.anthony.tay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> + 1. Those who want to submit great apps are in danger of being
> Penalized if the deadline is not extended. Remember that there was an
> implicit "promise" that one could build serious apps for the
> Challenge. Apps that people will use alot and have never been seen
> before. It's not enough time to build those.
>
> In my own mind, I really believe I can build what I want to. My
> feelings and intellect tell me I have just enough time. But that's not
> the way it works in software development. If 1 month is enough time
> then 2 months is the REAL time.
>
> If the new SDK comes out, how long will it take to learn it? How much
> of your programs will you need to change? One extra Api may change the
> whole paradigm of your app. Then you might get Zero points because
> you're not following Android.
>
> The Android Team needs to take their time more in getting the platform
> up to speed, that platform that starts the Mobile Revolution. So for
> the sake of the platform and for the business side of the apps
> themselves, the Challenge should most definitively be extended.
>
> And as Peli said, I'm sure Google would be gracious enough to double
> or triple the Prizes. Or possibly even Quaduple it.
>
> - Juan

[xtrawurst]

I would like to vote STRONGLY AGAINST an extension of the deadline.
I have put serious amounts of time into my project and worked out a
plan that has contains the deadline being the 3.3.2008 in many of it's
considerations. Maybe this is true not only for me but also for a lot
of other people joining this challenge.
Extending the deadline now (a month and a week before) would be unfair
towards all those who have built their time management upon this.

On Jan 24, 7:14 pm, planner <i...@openandroids.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's really necessary to extend the deadline. I think a
> better idea would be to set 3-5 grants for incomplete projects that
> "show promise", and give those projects the second part of the
> Challenge to finish up
>
> --

> Boudiahttp://openandroids.com

[max]

I agree. I've arranged everything so that I can finish before the
original deadline. An extension wouldn't do much for me either.

[vetch]

> Serious developers have their time planned.

I agree. I have family, working all day long for corporation, wasting
3 hours per day for getting to work by train, and my appllication is
finished at about 70%. Because, if you really want, you can. Don't
understand people, who have no job, no family, only school or
something and still complain about no time. If you have no time, than
developer challenge is not for you, it's simple.

[Anil]

Please extend the deadline. It is in Google's interest to see non-
trivial apps.
It takes a lot of time to develop a non trivial app if one has a day-
job and family.
Furthermore, the SDK has bugs, and incomplete functionality.

[jjersin]

+1 for an extension.

My team members and I are all grad students, so we are balancing our
dev time with classes and research. We have spent plenty of time on
our app, but we are aiming to produce a sophisticated product. We may
not be able to make the current deadline without some extra time, and
getting $25k of prize money would give us funding to develop our idea
over the summer into a finished product.

John

[Laszlo Antal]

+1 for an extension.

> Laszlo Antal

[jtaylor]

I'm changing from -1 to 0. I think everything is dependent on what the
new SDK looks like. If it has alot of Documentation and more
Examples.


- Juan

[luke]

I vote +1 for an extended deadline. I am trying to do something very
non-trivial, which I really would need the source of the existing
stack to complete quickly (and many more examples), but the source is
not yet available and this is slowing me down. I'm having to resort
to decompilation to get anything done, but this is not ideal because
there are no comments.

[Pedro]

yes please extend the deadline..i really wanna finish my app.. but my
damn school shifted the finals schedule to after the springbreak, so
right now untill midth february im in finals !!

[acopernicus]

Add one for NO extension.

Many of us have been working quite hard to meet this deadline
(skipping sleep and weekend vacations) to get our applications
completed. But that's part of what makes these competitions so fun
and invigorating - the intensity of struggling against not quite
impossible odds. If the deadline wasn't as tight, I doubt many of us
would have worked so hard or have been so productive in getting to
where we are. Please don't take away the feeling of success we'll
have when we meet the tight deadline.

Given the existence of the second challenge, those people that can't
make this first one will always have the opportunity to compete in the
second.

Best of luck to everyone!

[Emak]

Yes please a short extension (1 to 2 weeks) would be great.
I apologize for all of you working so hard trying to commit to
deadline, I also agree with most of your valid reasoning such as the
nature of a challenge, it's not fair, no excuse for bad planning or
conflict with daytime job and family needs among others...
Nevertheless looking at the bigger picture, it's a win-win situation
for everyone; potentially a better sdk, enough time for more polishing
and testing or even one or more creative feature that can add to your
chance of winning is actually a good thing. Allowing new addition to
enter the competition is also good for the whole industry as more
creative ideas will come to live. It will even make the challenge more
stimulating. On the other hand, adding one or two weeks to an average
of 2 month project plan wouldn't have changed your actual concept,
architecture or design, probably just slightly the scope of features;
this is not a valid excuse, please do NOT use it for the debate. If
you're done ahead of time, congratulate your team and yourself and
take a break.

Being the cto for two companies at the same time along 2 young kids
and one more on the way, you can imagine the responsibility and lack
of free time. Regardless I'm going to try for at least 2 decent
submissions with or without extension irrelevant of how many other
participants 1000 or 5000.

From another perspective, it seems everyone forgot it's that time of
the year (3GSM at Barcelona); we're burning the nights trying to
release new product to preview at the show like most serious wireless
companies including Google which I heard reserved a huge stand for
potentially an early prototype of an Android powered device (only
rumors so far). As such a short extension would be great since we
barely have 2 weeks after we come back from 3GSM.

Lets all focus, ignore all the noise around and get down to what we do
best and best of luck to all.

Thanks,

[haiswe...@gmail.com]

I strongly vote against extending the deadline.

I think the vote itself is unfair. People who are eager to have extra
time are more willing to vote in this post. But the people who are
slightly against it may not give their opinion in this post. I think
if this post is saying:"We are likely to extend the deadline for sure,
who against this?". Then I think the votes against for extending
deadline will be a lot more.

As for myself I have many other things to do after March 3rd, just
leaving two months free to code. And my plan is made in advance
according to the rules google made for Developer Challenge.

If the deadline changed, it is very unfair for the people like me who
have planned everything in advance. This is a competition and I think
the rules shouldn't be changed if google take this competition
seriously as a competition, not just a tool for catching public's
eye.

[Shooter]

+1 for extending the deadline.

The guys with a headstart may not find this too useful, but then other
people with good ideas who have not been able to spend much time at
their projects so far will get a chance to polish their projects and
test them to a good degree.

Thanks !

[vetch]

> If the deadline changed, it is very unfair for the people like me who
> have planned everything in advance.

I agree

> This is a competition and I think
> the rules shouldn't be changed if google take this competition
> seriously as a competition,

yes, and relax. I think, there is NO WAY to change rules. Because
people, who have already entered competition, they digitally SIGNED
the challenge agreement. This agreement already works in both ways.

So, I think, this whole poll is only a wishfull thinking.

[barbapapaz]

According to rule and for all people that have developped day and
night. 3 March is good!

Thanks

[luke]

Nobody actually loses anything by having the deadline extended. Lots
of people have lots to gain by having it extended, because everybody
gets more time to make their application even cooler, or to simply sit
back and still enjoy the knowledge that they finished before the
deadline.

The community especially benefits, *which is the whole point of the
Developer Challenge*, because there will be more high-quality finished
software.

Besides, software is never "finished", so even those people who feel
they will finish by the deadline have nothing to lose.

[cowgirl]

I vote YES to extend. Just a few more weeks would do wonders.

Carla White

[Cow Bay]

i vote YES to extend deadline, too.

we r not in an "academical" contest.

sufficient time is essential to brew "USEFUL" commercial software for
BUSINESS.

[ajd]

On Jan 28, 12:47 pm, "Cow Bay" <nmlg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i vote YES to extend deadline, too.
>
> we r not in an "academical" contest.
>
> sufficient time is essential to brew "USEFUL" commercial software for
> BUSINESS.
>

Ok... If google grants this extension, I hope you will vote yes too if
we will ask for another extension.
I'm thinking to develop a software that will be very useful given 6
months. Ohh but, I have one more software idea. It will be useful if I
be given 2 years.
Why not request google to just remove the deadline clause in the
"terms and conditions"? Just replace with "until every entry has
brewed a USEFUL commercial software".
We are not in an academical contest, whatever that means. But this is
still a contest. This is a contest that has rules established prior to
starting. You simply just don't change the rules in the middle of the
contest.

[Shane Isbell]

Why don't we just squeeze the contest to one day? Then every entry will be useless, and if not we should be able to squeeze the contest into a half-day. ;)

 

Shane

[Cow Bay]

ho~ho~ me am unable to change the rules but trying to urge google to do
whatever it may think best to its benefits with whatever rights it has
reserved to do so.

----- Original Message -----
From: "ajd" <domi...@yahoo.com>
To: "Android Challenge" <android-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 12:11 PM
Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Question/Poll for the Community: Extend
Deadline?

[Cow Bay]

thank god! u r not googler.

----- Original Message -----
From: Shane Isbell
To: android-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 12:17 PM
Subject: [android-challenge] Re: Question/Poll for the Community: Extend
Deadline?

[Shane Isbell]

Yeah, I would hate getting free lunches everyday. But if I were a googler, I would have waited six months before even announcing the contest. Then those people/projects with an interest in the technology would have an unfair advantage over the hordes who are looking for money and would disappear anyway after the contest is over. That's one reason I'm for the one day contest so we can flush these people away but I guess that wouldn't be fair to them.

 

Again, I don't mind that the hordes don't want an extension because it's not fair to them but I do mind the constant shoving of this fairness argument down the throat of every person that says that they would like more time or that they have concerns about the community and quality of the applications. This auto-response has already become annoying. And then we get the "infinite extension argument" which is an argument that rejects any concept of optimization. That's another reason I suggested to just have one day for the contest. Then I could apply the "infinite extension argument" freely and reasonably, even though my suggestion is absurd.

 

Personally I don't think it's fair for Google to reward people who have no interest in the health of the Android community. Sadly, Google has rented their community and will continue to do so for the next month.

 

Shane