Hello
This is not trying to insult anybody on this forum, but i would like to know,
Why it is that on Devices such as Iphone/Android, the apps look good, and are smooth, whereas on windowsmobile they often end up being ugly .
Obviously some are great on windows mobile, and run flawlessly,
however the majority of apps on the internet are unpleasing.
Take for example, towers of hanoi.
I know most will hate the game but oh well.
On the iphone, there are a few apps for towers of hanoi, this being an example
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Now here is the best one available for windows, NOTING IT IS A PAID APP COSTING £6.84
millions of apps are like this, where there is not a satisfactory wm6 equivilant. this is only 1 app i came across in day to day life .
Saying that, most inventive games on iphone dont even have a wm6 equivilant, satisfactory or not.
Please note, i do realize millions of useful apps not available on other platforms are available on wm6, TF3D etc.
However to me ,I am getting annoyed with the lack of nice games for wm6.
Will this change when the windows marketplace is opened properly?
Maybe because WM is designed mainly to be practical? If anyone wants to see gorgeous landscapes simply copy photos of 'em to your phone and view them, on, for example a VGA screen which is incomparable to ****ty HVGA overiszed iPhones screen.
Want more games? Get yourself an emulator, for example SmartGear. It is paid, but (nearly) everything in iphone's app store is paid. After you get the emulator to work you get hundreds of games with excellent playability. But if you want inventions like:
a) pressing onscreen buttons and blowing into the mic to make sound
b) unlocking the screen by removing the simulated fog by your finger
c) game which is clever because its objective is to... press a button! yeah! The longer the better!
sorry, better get yourself an iPhone. If you managed to get this far and you don't want to kill me... wait for MS to designe the UI in a extra shiny finger friendly manner. Most likely developers will follow it.
I actually think a lot of the apps look nice; they could've been nicer, however, i'd prefer function over "form." Also, one of the reasons they don't look very aesthetically pleasing is becasue a lot are .NET applications so they're just there to deliver what the programs offers.
Because it's more difficult...
Because most apps are written by hobbyist programmers and we're forced to use standard .NET controls.
Programming fancy graphics is incredibly difficult and time consuming.
not that i know anything about applications,,
but having to use .net controls sounds pretty ****.
Its just annoying that android and iphone have applications so far ahead of wm.
I think wm6 needs a complete redesign.
Even wm7 shots look dissapointing.
One problem/strength of WM is that it is available running on a diverse range of hardware which is completely opposite to the i-will-ride-on-my-own-bicycle-only-:babycry: philosophy of iPhone. WM apps are designed keeping all these phones in mind, so to let the app get monetized to the max. iPhone apps have the same hardware, as there is only one iPhone, no choice. They have 3D acceleration, Fast processor etc etc on it, so they design graphics heavy apps that will surely run on their one and only target platform. If you have the money, have an iPhone, and play with the apps, if you dont, just f**k off, thats what apple's philosophy is. If you disagree, tell me an apple phone that comes for the price of HTC GENE.
Apps that are targeted for certain WM phones do run with all the iCandy as possible on that phone. I dont have any exact example right now, but i am sure somebody here will provide if needed.
For example, if an app is designed to run on a HTC Touch Pro 2 exclusively, i m sure you'll see much better interface than the one which is designed to run on as many devices as possible, from the low end HTC Gene to ultra high end TouchPro 2.
I hope this will clear things out a bit for everyone.
Just a few corrections of opinion
First off, whoever thinks that attaching some pretty graphics to the screen in .Net/C# is challenging, you seriously need to take more than an introductory class at a community college. It's not hard, you just have to be willing to find the graphics to use. Animation in WM is certainly more daunting and would be far easier to do if MS would have added WPF to the CF 3.5...
...the abundance of abbreviations in that last line just goes to show that programming is getting too annoying
Anyway, to answer one particular point which everybody else glossed over, is that Android ALSO has a lot of pretty apps like the iPhone (even though people ignore it). What people don't talk about is that android actually has it's own interface mechanism a lot like WPF/XAML which is supposed to be very friendly (I haven't really checked yet, but it seems to be popular).
A lot of people blame it on different devices having such different specs. While that SEEMS like a good argument, everybody who says it is blindly babbling without realizing that in 4-5 years the iPhone and Android phones will ALL BE VGA!!!!! If they aren't VGA, then NOBODY WILL BUY THEM!!!!! Hint hint, that means that both of those platforms will suffer the same problem that WM is "credited" with now.
The different resolution quality (VGA vs QVGA) is little more than a matter of releasing the original graphics in multiple sets. The issue of different resolution dimensions (WVGA vs VGA vs other-weird-boxy-GAs) could actually be handled (in most cases) with a simple bit of programming logic in the OnPaint handler.
Now, my answer to the question.....
Fact is, look at the programming communities of Android and iPhone, they both have a massive amount of open source/dev kit type samples, especially focusing heavily on graphics (especially with the iPhone, which focuses almost exclusively on graphics). WM samples tend to focus heavily on systems programming.
One other issue that exists is that interface programming is historically complicated with low-level programming languages. Apple gets by it using a highly customized and extended form of Objective-C. Android solves it with their xaml-like language which makes building the GUI a lot like writing a web page (loose comparison for the less technically inclined, don't flame me over the inaccuracies). Windows Mobile has the .Net framework, which can be made pretty without too much effort, but it suffers from not being fully integrated with the OS, therefore a lot of apps can be sluggish when written in .Net. The other option is to write in C++, which leads us back to the much more complicated UI programming.
There's your REAL reasons. Most programmers either don't have access to (or awareness of) good samples for a lot of the better graphics tricks, and the rest of them don't want to build something that runs too slow that it's going to get tons of complaints. I think there's one other contributing issue, there's not enough people who are willing to get together and partition out the work. It would only take 5-10 decently skilled graphics programmers to work with the high number of skilled systems programmers on this forum and we could see a nearly limitless number of high quality apps that would blow away anything on any of the competing phones.
As a side note, another thought strikes me....I think a LOT of people are waiting on the Tegra chips to start circulating before they start writing a lot. I know that's had me reluctant to put too much work into a few projects.
Because Apple has a bigger line of programmers.
Two aspects I can think of:
Apple has Steve Jobs, who happens to be educated BIG TIME in User Interface. iPhone is specifically designed (H/W and S/W locking together), so achieving it is easier.
WM (we're talking about WM, right?) is still based on PC / Desktop version, and the GUI (up to XP) doesn't change much. I believe 6.5 brings innovation (as I tested some cooked ROM) in smoothing the GUI. However, as an ex UIQ3 user, I believe, even if WM is intended for many devices (more standardized), MS can learn (and seems to be learning) from UIQ. All theme of UIQ changes a lot (scroll bar, text color, background). While for WM, the standard WM 6.1 theme won't even change the white background when we go to 'Setting' for example ..
Just my 2 cents coming from different world
After reading all this i still do not understand why WM apps, not games, are so ugly looking. People can skin various keyboards, Music Players, creat iPhone looking today screens, skin dial pads, calculators etc. Why not simple make the original app good looking? I'm not talking about animations either. Look how much better looking the dialers people are making compared to the standard dialer that some of our phones have like my Touch pro.
I saw someone on this site made a mobile version of Google Translator tool. Its perfect function wise but it could definitely look better. Someone on Ppcgeeks made a movie searching app called Cinemo. It's not ugly but its not as good looking as the Pre's Fandango app. I'm not talking about the Fandango apps function, just the form.
Look how well Weather Panel themes look & how good iContacts look. Why cant WM users have form & functionality?
charm1718 said:
After reading all this i still do not understand why WM apps, not games, are so ugly looking. People can skin various keyboards, Music Players, creat iPhone looking today screens, skin dial pads, calculators etc. Why not simple make the original app good looking? I'm not talking about animations either. Look how much better looking the dialers people are making compared to the standard dialer that some of our phones have like my Touch pro.
I saw someone on this site made a mobile version of Google Translator tool. Its perfect function wise but it could definitely look better. Someone on Ppcgeeks made a movie searching app called Cinemo. It's not ugly but its not as good looking as the Pre's Fandango app. I'm not talking about the Fandango apps function, just the form.
Look how well Weather Panel themes look & how good iContacts look. Why cant WM users have form & functionality?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Standardisation. There are no default "fancy" controls for either MFC or .NET for Windows Mobile like there are for iPhone (and I assume Android).
To make aesthetically pleasing applications for WM requires the programmer to design their own, making each and every application completely different in appearance. These small changes confuse & irrate most users as they can't find what they're looking for, therefore we just use the default controls instead of wasting time on making it pretty.
Secondly, putting graphics onto the screen is all well and good, but you want your app to run on as many resolutions as possible. That means resizing images (ugh) or having a separate image for each resolution making your application larger (ugh).
Blade0rz said:
Standardisation. There are no default "fancy" controls for either MFC or .NET for Windows Mobile like there are for iPhone (and I assume Android).
To make aesthetically pleasing applications for WM requires the programmer to design their own, making each and every application completely different in appearance. These small changes confuse & irrate most users as they can't find what they're looking for, therefore we just use the default controls instead of wasting time on making it pretty.
Secondly, putting graphics onto the screen is all well and good, but you want your app to run on as many resolutions as possible. That means resizing images (ugh) or having a separate image for each resolution making your application larger (ugh).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are all programs skinnable?
I understand that making a program for various resolutions would be tedious but what I dont understand is why do people only make things look good after its seen elsewhwere? Nobody decided to make better looking media player skins until the iPhone came out. This also the same with contacts, dialers & keyboards. If this could have been done before, why wait until someone else does it then copy it?
When I look in Development & Hacking I see apps for specific resolutions. People post asking for different resolutions and someone else might make the changes if they have a device with that resolution. Is there something the developer has to do on his end to make an app skinnable or can they all be skinned?
charm1718 said:
Are all programs skinnable?
I understand that making a program for various resolutions would be tedious but what I dont understand is why do people only make things look good after its seen elsewhwere? Nobody decided to make better looking media player skins until the iPhone came out. This also the same with contacts, dialers & keyboards. If this could have been done before, why wait until someone else does it then copy it?
When I look in Development & Hacking I see apps for specific resolutions. People post asking for different resolutions and someone else might make the changes if they have a device with that resolution. Is there something the developer has to do on his end to make an app skinnable or can they all be skinned?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Skins have to be implemented by the developer. Although, all images that are used within a program have to be stored somewhere (either within the program itself or on your device) so those images can be found & replaced as many people on this board do. This does take some knowledge though.
And the reason people only came out with nice-looking interfaces after the iPhone is because it was innovative. It's a lot easier to copy an interface than it is to pick a design out of your brain & implement it from scratch
There's several reasons why WM has a lot of ugliness in its apps.
One is due to the UI itself. Non-fullscreen apps have both a top and bottom bar cluttering the screen and apps are rarely built to "match" the existing bars. The iPhone has less screen real estate taken up by the UI, so developers can control the look a bit more. Also, as I understand it, WM offers uglier barebones formatting. The iPhone gives devs access to prettier standard controls, menus, and fonts, whereas WM devs start with ugly and aliased controls and the like.
One reason is due to age -- WM has been around a (relatively) long time and many of the apps you're seeing were designed for devices with weaker visual capabilities and were also designed when the mobile app market was smaller and less competitive, so there was less incentive to make things pretty.
Another reason is due to the fact that a lot of WM apps are made by very amateur developers who simply don't have the training and know-how to pretty things up. WM, as a platform, seems most popular amongst IT workers, geeks, and tweakers. This is why there's tons of powerful, functional apps out there -- but a lot of us geeks don't know much about design. I, unfortunately, know about design but not programming.
I really didn't know who and what to quote, too many thoughts, so I'm just kinda re-reading the page and commenting back as I go. Sorry it's super long
charm1718 said:
Someone on Ppcgeeks made a movie searching app called Cinemo. It's not ugly but its not as good looking as the Pre's Fandango app. I'm not talking about the Fandango apps function, just the form.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You compare the Cinemo app made by a single unpaid developer against a corporately paid group of developers with pre-defined branding, graphics, and an advertising department (read: designers) under Fandango. That's a bit unfair
Ignoring function, most people on here could steal the graphics and duplicate the app's look.
Blade0rz said:
To make aesthetically pleasing applications for WM requires the programmer to design their own, making each and every application completely different in appearance. These small changes confuse & irrate most users as they can't find what they're looking for, therefore we just use the default controls instead of wasting time on making it pretty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is untrue. This is a now ancient viewpoint that's still held from the days of windows 3.x when everybody was tired and confused by the wildly bad interfaces that existed for business apps which took weeks and months to learn basic function. Sure, people want to have SOME consistency with their apps like how to close it or how to find menus, but an easy interface doesn't need to use only basic controls. If this were true, then each of the new mobile os's that come out would have failed since none of their interfaces match the other phones before them. The best designs offer more graphics than text, a more interactive and direct way of achieving tasks, and having as many options without cluttering the screen or adding more taps.
charm1718 said:
...what I dont understand is why do people only make things look good after its seen elsewhwere? Nobody decided to make better looking media player skins until the iPhone came out. This also the same with contacts, dialers & keyboards. If this could have been done before, why wait until someone else does it then copy it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also untrue. Sure, the amount of skinning went way up after the iPhone, there's been skinning on the media player for years. There's also been 3rd party apps that are far more attractive and functional for contacts and keyboards. The reason most people didn't see this is that these were usually paid apps or poorly advertised amidst hundreds of garbage apps on various repositories of shareware trash that people posted for WinMo.
typo said:
One is due to the UI itself. Non-fullscreen apps have both a top and bottom bar cluttering the screen and apps are rarely built to "match" the existing bars. The iPhone has less screen real estate taken up by the UI, so developers can control the look a bit more. Also, as I understand it, WM offers uglier barebones formatting. The iPhone gives devs access to prettier standard controls, menus, and fonts, whereas WM devs start with ugly and aliased controls and the like
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WinMo developers can hide the top and bottom bars fairly easily (especially in .Net), so screen real estate is still available. I think many times we don't because we don't want to take away the legitimate use of those bars. As to the rest of what you said, spot on...the controls are ugly as opposed to the prettier ones built into other OS's. But remember what it was like to move from windows 98 (or 2000) to XP, the same thing will happen as winmo updates it's own UI libraries.
typo said:
Another reason is due to the fact that a lot of WM apps are made by very amateur developers who simply don't have the training and know-how to pretty things up. WM, as a platform, seems most popular amongst IT workers, geeks, and tweakers. This is why there's tons of powerful, functional apps out there -- but a lot of us geeks don't know much about design. I, unfortunately, know about design but not programming.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very true, since the educated among us were never given serious classes on UI Design or Graphics Programming. The amateurs are stumbling through even a lot of the functional stuff. The hackers are usually good at changing something, but they can't create something new.
You also say something that brings up a subject I've complained about before (and is part of an argument I've made MANY times that we need a full-scale section just for development/programming instead of the single D&H sub-section we have now). There's a lot of people on here that are good at the functional programming. There's also a few (far less) who are good at the graphics programming. There's also a ton of people who are very good at graphic design and photoshop. A LOT of the apps that are released on here have terrible UI's because the people with functional knowledge don't take/have the time to make it pretty while at the same time those with graphic programming skill are wasting weeks trying to make their program functional while it's got a great UI already done. The two types need to work together and we could easily dominate anything ever done for any mobile OS out there.
btw, I want to add my own personal complaint. One of the most performant and potentially best looking API's belongs to OpenGL ES, which is a 3d rendering functionality all of our phones have built into the recent MSM chipsets. The problem is, only some phones have working drivers, and even less have efficient drivers. I would love to use OpenGL ES to write half of the stuff I want to, but I can't do that with any expectation of it being able to run decently on any phone older than the Diamond...and that's just among HTC phones...There's no certainty of any other handset having proper function or speed. This, to me, is one of the biggest setbacks and prevents a lot of devs from aiming high.
Thank you for clearing some things up. It would be great if the programmers and graphic designers could work together on more projects.
charm1718 said:
Thank you for clearing some things up. It would be great if the programmers and graphic designers could work together on more projects.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd like to get all three working together on projects. There's a few people who really know how to build the UI code, and there's a few wildly talented people who can put together graphics.
The thing I'd really like to do is get an organized team of people set up to work on projects, similar to how it would be done in any professional shop. A few guys who know systems/db/back-end coding, a few UI experts, and a few graphic designers. Baring that, at least get a list of people who would offer to join in on projects as they were put together.
speed_pour said:
I'd like to get all three working together on projects. There's a few people who really know how to build the UI code, and there's a few wildly talented people who can put together graphics.
The thing I'd really like to do is get an organized team of people set up to work on projects, similar to how it would be done in any professional shop. A few guys who know systems/db/back-end coding, a few UI experts, and a few graphic designers. Baring that, at least get a list of people who would offer to join in on projects as they were put together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you reached out to anyone & tried putting something like this together?
charm1718 said:
Have you reached out to anyone & tried putting something like this together?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've suggested it once before. For reasons that are too varied to get into right now, I expect that it would run into some complications on this forum.
With my current constraints (lack of gainful employment), I'm reluctant to get too deeply involved in organizing such a project unless it had the potential of turning profits. I do see a lot of potential in forming a group that produced both freeware/open source apps along with some commercial apps...I would be happy to be involved in that venture. If any serious developers are interested in a project like this, I would certainly find the time to organize and also be a developer.
Related
Firstly Mods sorry if this is the wrong section I didnt want to clog up the Development and Hacking forum. Please feel free to move this to the appropiate place.
......
I've got an idea for a little calculator app with specific functions which I know will go down very well with independent store owners. I've programmed a very crude prototype for Windows using my very very simplistic Visual Basic skills.
The problem is for this app to be useful I need it to run on peoples phones as a third party app so as its portable, and here's where the idea totally falls flat, with all the different platforms like Windows Mobile and Symbian i'm just wondering what would be the best platform to go for and if its possible to create a version that might work across a wide variety of different phones maybe using Java.
My ideal target audience will more than likely be Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson users as opposed to Windows Mobile users.
Would it be just easier to commision different versions and how much should i expect to pay for a basic auto calculation app. I'm thinking of commercially selling the product is there any disadvantages of getting a third party to program the application?
All advice is appreciated and thanks in advance for any replies.
Well, I am not very familiar with the platforms you listed as preferred, but from what I know you will have to go with Java to accommodate them all.
It is still likely that you may need several versions if you want to properly accommodate the form factor of different phones.
There is no such thing as a best platform for a calculator app, which does not have specialized hardware requirements. Unless of course you are planning on a graphical interface so screen size or touch screen are major considerations.
If you really want someone to program for you for one time only, you may be interested in this site: www.rentacoder.com
As for price there are several considerations:
1) How much stuff does the app really do? How robust is it?
2) Are there other apps that preform same or similar functions and how much do they cost if at all? A quick search of the net may reveal that your idea has already been implemented as a freeware.
3) Will your software have a home? Basically when distributing commercial software you have to take in to consideration such things as registration, technical support for your customers and future updates.
Sites like www.pocketgear.com will let you easily distribute your app for as little as 5$, but many customers are unlikely to pay larger sums for an app that does not even have its own web site, let along a number you can call if you run in to trouble.
Thanks that was very helpful, i appreciate all the info.
Is there anybody with specific knowledge about programming for the other platforms?
Taking a speech class and had a chance to write about the Android platform. Figured I'd share here. Enjoy and comment as you will.
I wish to start off by saying welcome to the future. A bold proclamation yes, but with such experiments and ongoing research by numerous scientists today, technological breakthroughs are vast and epic. One of the many platforms so to speak that is having phenomenal breakthroughs is in the mobile systems department. Here lays a couple companies with R&D plans that carter towards certain parties promising slick user interfaces, application channels, and a complete web experience. Couple that with feature rich phones that allow one to text, call, global positioning (GPS), and well, you have a product to sell. Google has done just that. Taking bits and pieces of everything one could ever ask for, and merging it all into its mobile operating system titled Android. Represented by a green round-headed robot figure, Android is passing its two year anniversary, and has surpassed other prominent mobile architectures like Apple’s iPhone software. But what exactly is Android? Why would one desire to chuck away their limited iPhone, or stray away from the Blackberry Enterprise lineup? One word: Open source. Couple that with the experience (the art of customizing your device), and the synchronization aspects of the device for virtually any account you have on the net, and you have a total package.
Having a total package within arm’s reach, and inside your pocket is quite a powerful tool. With Google’s Android platform, there is never a point where you can say No. Any and every idea can and could be coded into the device if you have the means to do so. Open source is the ticket. Asking yourself what this means is actually a very simple question. Open source is the definition of computer code that is freely available to anyone who wishes to find it. Google has opened up the software to all who have a spirit to create and provide applications (Apps) and programs to others. Hackers, coders, and all techy guros have created a plethora of net-libraries ranging from support groups, forums and websites to further help noobies in the process. Sounds like a lot, but in reality, the experience is quite easy going. Competitors like Apple and Blackberry have limited their system to developers by safekeeping some of its computer code. This limits creativity, as it puts restrictions and limitations as to what exactly what one can create. Add to the fact that companies like Apple also screen apps to a much higher caliber, halting smaller apps without much bang in the beginning to be choked to death. It seems as if anything is available for pleasure with Android though. If it doesn’t exist, pop into a forum and jot down a reply on a thread. If that’s not enough, I’m sure you have one friend that has already found solutions in the “Green-Guy”. There is always someone there who has the tools necessary to create it, or rather has already created it in the first place.
From forums and coders who have the know-how and tools to create a mind-blowing experience, the customization factor of Android is truly one of its largest selling points. To be quite honest, each and every android device could be considered a work of art. It’s all in how the user desires it for themselves…how deep the user wants to venture; how deep goes their rabbit? From changing backgrounds and wallpapers, to adding widgets to your home screen, the android spectrum allows one to make the phone their own, morph it into how they see fitting. But how is this different from other products? Surely other phones allow their users to alter what they see on screen. Yet I assert, the android experience is different. Almost, if not every aspect of android is customizable. Icons can be altered, the font can be changed, dates, times, anything can be tweaked. Sites like XDA, AndroidSpin, and AndroidandMe provide great reviews, heads up, and forums to browse through numerous applications, both beta and final. The options are endless, and it’s open in the air to anyone who desires a bit of change. Many new phones come preinstalled with newer software, as you might here Froyo, Éclair or Gingerbread tossed around. These are simply codenames for newer versions of software from Google. If your carrier doesn’t support the newer software, chances are a coder has already made it available for you. Convenience without a price attached!
Free in price is seemingly synonymous with freedom. Freedom to choose. Freedom to enjoy. Freedom to experience. Freedom from a stationary computer. Android is a thriving system that allows you to constantly stay on the up and up. Synchronization appears a mystery as your Facebook, Twitter, email, and numerous other accounts are integrated into the system via apps or at stock. With live widgets that monitor in real time your accounts, any and all social networks, social feeds, and business/personal accounts are updated instantly. No more carrying around a tiring laptop, or waiting to login the networks at any given campus. 3G speeds and now 4G on some carriers are making mobile devices the in crowd, as speeds are comparable to standard net speeds. As many people day are on the up and up, or rather, out and about, a mobile system that constantly allows access to ones desired feeds is grand. Couple that with ability to alter documents on the fly, listen to your favorite music (via Pandora, or from the Phones Internal Memory…think iPod), you have a complete package. It’s not just a Media Device, a Business Device, a Cell Phone, as it truly lives up to the name of Smart Phone.
For me the choice was easy. I thrive off customization, the ability to make my phone a tad different, even faster, or more efficient then what the original company did for me. But as Android ages, everything looks bright and promising. To proclaim dark clouds linger would be insanity. From its initial creation of being open-sourced, to customizing features and its ability to be versatile, Android has shattered the mobile systems realm. As it races to the top, Android allows users to update on the go, with synchronization from virtually every social feed. When people ask me about phones and what should be right for them, there is no question for me. It’s never been a question about what Android can’t do, but what Android does.
<- Laughing Out Loud.
It's full of grammar faux pas, by the way.
Still very well written *only read first paragraph* but I was impressed, not bad Also maybe a bit many commas...
BTW, shouldve been posted in the off topic section
Nice Speech. I Enjoyed reading it.
Sent from Conical. 07
Social media and mobile apps seem to be the new buzz words over at Silicon Valley. In fact, such apps are now a dime a dozen and one could imagine Apple changing their popular catchphrase “There’s an app for that!” into “There are a thousand different apps for that, all of which have the same basic features, but subtle useless differences.”
The problem isn’t that we are approaching the boundaries of utility as far as mobile apps are concerned, it’s just that once an app or social service gets popular, developers start crowding around its concept and make thousands of clone apps, with little in terms of differentiation. We need more unique and original apps that stretch the boundaries of what we can accomplish with our phones and tablets and make you think “Wow! Who would have thought I could do that with this little thing I carry around with me?!” What we’re getting are the same basic concepts, re-hashed to such an insane degree that app stores get crowded with half-baked clone apps and the really amazing ones are drowned out in a sea of filth.
In my opinion, developers should ask themselves three basic questions before designing an app or a social service:
“Has this been done before?”
“If it has, can I do it in a way that is better/more pleasant to use?”
“If no, would I be able to introduce any sort of useful feature except a wacky name?”
And if the answers to all three questions are unfavourable, then the developer should think twice about coding such an app. It would only add redundancy to the app store and contribute to the rising app discovery epidemic.
I shudder to think about all the high quality apps made by independent developers all over the world that haven’t been popularized simply because of an overly saturated market. The amount of lost potential in app markets today is simply staggering.
Apart from market saturation, redundant apps also tend to cause mental saturation. In this day and age, who among us has the capacity to remember a billion app names? If we can’t even remember such a numerous volume of apps, how can we aspire to use them?
In my opinion, authorities like Apple and Google should monitor the apps in their stores not just for quality, but for identity of vision as well. Apps that feel like cheap copies of pre-existing apps need to be banned! I, for one have had enough of my normal friends playing ruddy Fruit Ninja clones and asking me why it doesn’t look as good as it does on my phone!
There are shining examples of how stupendously done apps with a clear and fresh vision can go viral within days of conception. They are the intellectual property of individuals that have worked hard to develop not just the code for their apps, but the core concept as well. And we owe it to those striving developers to make sure that the integrity of that core concept remains preserved.
k33t said:
Social media and mobile apps seem to be the new buzz words over at Silicon Valley. In fact, such apps are now a dime a dozen and one could imagine Apple changing their popular catchphrase “There’s an app for that!” into “There are a thousand different apps for that, all of which have the same basic features, but subtle useless differences.”
The problem isn’t that we are approaching the boundaries of utility as far as mobile apps are concerned, it’s just that once an app or social service gets popular, developers start crowding around its concept and make thousands of clone apps, with little in terms of differentiation. We need more unique and original apps that stretch the boundaries of what we can accomplish with our phones and tablets and make you think “Wow! Who would have thought I could do that with this little thing I carry around with me?!” What we’re getting are the same basic concepts, re-hashed to such an insane degree that app stores get crowded with half-baked clone apps and the really amazing ones are drowned out in a sea of filth.
In my opinion, developers should ask themselves three basic questions before designing an app or a social service:
“Has this been done before?”
“If it has, can I do it in a way that is better/more pleasant to use?”
“If no, would I be able to introduce any sort of useful feature except a wacky name?”
And if the answers to all three questions are unfavourable, then the developer should think twice about coding such an app. It would only add redundancy to the app store and contribute to the rising app discovery epidemic.
I shudder to think about all the high quality apps made by independent developers all over the world that haven’t been popularized simply because of an overly saturated market. The amount of lost potential in app markets today is simply staggering.
Apart from market saturation, redundant apps also tend to cause mental saturation. In this day and age, who among us has the capacity to remember a billion app names? If we can’t even remember such a numerous volume of apps, how can we aspire to use them?
In my opinion, authorities like Apple and Google should monitor the apps in their stores not just for quality, but for identity of vision as well. Apps that feel like cheap copies of pre-existing apps need to be banned! I, for one have had enough of my normal friends playing ruddy Fruit Ninja clones and asking me why it doesn’t look as good as it does on my phone!
There are shining examples of how stupendously done apps with a clear and fresh vision can go viral within days of conception. They are the intellectual property of individuals that have worked hard to develop not just the code for their apps, but the core concept as well. And we owe it to those striving developers to make sure that the integrity of that core concept remains preserved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah kind of like the lack of remotely interesting original posts on this forum, verses the viral like increase in nonsense that seems intended to do nothing but allow some forum users to boost their post count ....
I think the main problem with this fragmentation is that it is in the nature of Social Discovery apps that there is some uniformity in use. To be able to actually find people through it requires that a lot of people are using the same one.
Only people use them for different reasons and therefor there is an app for any of those reasons. Like some want to use them just to stay in touch with their friends and family, others to meet new people (like me when I am going to a new place) and than there is a group that uses them for flirting or organizing sexual encounters (I am not judging)
I think the best innovation for companies would be to invent an app that combines these functions. I haven't been able to find one.
If you know one, please let me know.
Thank you, I enjoyed reading your view. I do share all your points other than the 'vision policing' part.
"In my opinion, authorities like Apple and Google should monitor the apps in their stores not just for quality, but for identity of vision as well."
If the vision could have been identified by the platform's creator then there wasn't a need for the App Store. The platform creator would have created every possibly visioned apps for its platform and not bother about the participation of thousands of developers on its ecosystem. Basically, to identify the visions one would restrict 'ideas' in which it does not go well with the creativity nature of mankind.
I found something on which you can have several profiles. So you can create one for every function you can have for a Social Discovery app. I think its sort of a good idea, because you don't need like ten thousants of profiles spread around over the net. Just use it however you want. I like that idea.
For me it's perfect because I always have a hard time remembering my passwords
It's called Evry'U. I found it through their facebook page that a friend linked me.
Did anybody heard of it?
Mozilla has lost its way. Technically it's not even a non-profit any longer, and it no longer behaves like it. Capriciousness and indifference to developer concerns is rampant.
For me, the change in the nature of the file browser is the straw which broke the camel's back. The file name now spills uncontrollably over the page, disfiguring any layout which surrounds it. Just as it does in Google's browser.
The direction Google is forcing the web into is contrary to the original vision of it as designed by Tim Berners-Lee. In response to user ire, the Mozilla team again and again blames Google, alleging that Google's design is "ultracompetitive" and that they "have to catch up" to them. Yet if you read their blogs they make no secret that the new standards and design choices are being made in collaboration with Google (HTML 5 is apparently the brainchild of a pair hailing from Google and Mozilla, respectively... or at least that's what they want you to think).
For me, the burden that the file browser now imposes is something that's just not practical from an implementation standpoint. With this change, web browser form design no longer even competitive to XWindow. The whole thing seems like it was dreamed up by one of the jerks on a reality talent contest... and a takeover by one of those very jerks seems to be the most probable cause of this particular miscarriage of philosophy, just as happened at Microsoft with XBox One last month. But I'm not about to clamor for a figurehead's head: just as at MS, something is rotten at Mozilla. We need a new seed to sprout that can take us into the future. A seed that will respect the intelligence of the people who have to now placed their faith in Mozilla, only to be told by the organization they exalted that they aren't as smart as it. This new organization, if it is not to suffer the same fate which hangs over Mozilla, will do right what Mozilla heedlessly does wrong, including:
respect for user freedom and competence.
avoids placing undue burdens on the designer
avoids obfusticating its code with impenetrable, bug-ridden COMs.
is open source.
In short, it'll be friendly and it'll actually listen to people who aren't ready to fork over their whole lives to an endless reinvention of the wheel like we are seeing at Mozilla.
Free browsers are nice and all, but they just aren't working out. We're getting what we deserve for letting Google take everything over and letting Mozilla get by without relying exclusively on user donations. The result is a corrupted organization and now, a faulty product. I'm prepared to pay a little for a good browser that respects common sense design practicalities. What about the rest of you, will you sacrifice the price of a couple large pizzas for a decent web browser minus the drama?
I've done my bit to try to change Mozilla's downward trajectory. I went on their forums and their chats and told them, this stuff doesn't work. They're making things hard. Their response was that they didn't really give two cents for the opinion of anyone who wasn't down in the trenches with them writing code in their incredibly complicated wrapper context. Like you, I've got other priorities. There are people out there with more experience and, quite frankly, better math skill that can do this job and get a lot more out of it. I want to give them the chance to do just that. Tired of the betrayals, just want to download my browser updates and be done with it... is that too much to ask? I don't think it is, and I hope you don't, either.
I've never tried to write code for a browser before, never even researched it. I'd be happy to help, but I'd like to see a mock GUI first to see how clean of a browser you're shooting for. Mock one up?
t3hcurs3 said:
I've never tried to write code for a browser before, never even researched it. I'd be happy to help, but I'd like to see a mock GUI first to see how clean of a browser you're shooting for. Mock one up?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually I was looking around and it seems like there is this browser called NetSurf which may be doing everything right. There's no build for Windows or for mobile, which is an issue, but its libraries are in C which offers little room for obfustication a la C++. Should be portable to Java... I think if there was a windows build this browser could take off.
Although I don't really need Windows anymore. I'd just as well settle for a mobile version. There's also Amaya, but it has a reputation for poor ease of use and excessive minimalism. And there's Dillo which is stuck in a timewarp.
There is a question of where they're getting their funding from. However, they seem to be far enough along that if they did start to pull crap it would be easy enough to fork, and really I don't think the web needs much more technology beyond what it already has at this point. I need more information though. What do you think?
Sewrizer said:
This is the best advice I can give as a humble user, and the point stated above makes me believe that this is how things should be created from the beginning. A new browser has the advantage of being based on the present ideas, and since the devs have nothing to lose they can introduce off the wall features, original ideas which others didn't dare to add for fear of losing users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I agree with this. I asked Moz's JS engine people why they didn't program Firefox to use webworker technology to manage events, so as not to tie up the browser when waiting for file access, and they said it "wasn't in the spec" and "wasn't a priority". And when I requested that they program the canvas API to access multiple cores, they told me to take it up with W3C. Thinking like is not gonna move anybody forward.
I have no issues with Firefox's UI... it's its API which kills me.
EDIT: OK Netsurf is definitely not ready for prime time, but it certainly has potential. I think if it were combined with Mozilla's SpiderMonkey it would be able to handle Javascript alright... I don't really care it's slower than Chrome from the outset... could always be improved. Really dynamic recompilation is the state of the art. I like that it's written in C, and uses GTK and SDL. Gonna look into this...
Here's some evidence of how bad Mozilla has become.
Nevermind... due to new poster restrictions I can't post my links.
Hello,
I've been doing some research on the many, many different routes I can go with Android development, and I'm hoping someone might be able to help narrow down my choice. My experience is currently web related, PHP/HTML/CSS, with knowledge of intermediate Javascript, etc.
I'd like to create a very similar game to Football Manager, but less ambitious. For those that aren't aware, it's a simulation game where you're the manager of a soccer team.
My ambition is to keep it very simple, dumbed down. No need to watch the games, pretty much all text with simple graphics for some things.
My issue is, trying to find a place to start. There's literally a lot of different routes, and I'm overwhelmed. Do I use HTML5? Java? One of the programs like Unity, Construct? PhoneGap?
For my specific game, and idea, what would be your best suggestion on what to use?
Thanks in advance.
you can try CocoonJS. it's easy.
It's html5 fraemwork.
CocoonJS is a technology that helps HTML5 developers publish their web-based games and apps in the most important mobile and web stores with no code changes and with all the advantages of native development.
Using CocoonJS, a single code base is enough to publish a game or app natively on more than 10 stores. Best of all, with no installations thanks to our cloud-based platform.
HTML5 is finally ready for cross-platform app and game development!
Learn more: http://ludei.com
But now it's in open beta.
All free, but all Extension only for premium users.
Premium account granted for free, if you have nice idia/project.
The answer is "it depends"
A couple of questions...
1. Will it only be for Android? or are you also planning to push it to iPhone?
2. Will the interface be more like a app (eg. gmail, calendar, utility apps) or more like a game (immersive, completely different interface) ?
3. Will there be a lot of interaction? or mainly consuming information?
pyko said:
The answer is "it depends"
A couple of questions...
1. Will it only be for Android? or are you also planning to push it to iPhone?
2. Will the interface be more like a app (eg. gmail, calendar, utility apps) or more like a game (immersive, completely different interface) ?
3. Will there be a lot of interaction? or mainly consuming information?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. Android to start, possibility of iPhone in the future.
2. Straight forward, more like an app, nothing too pretty, more statistical.
3. Mainly consuming information, lots of behind the scenes work.
In that case, I would say go for a mobile friendly web-based app, as opposed to a native app. So this would mean HTML/CSS/JavaScript.
Reasons are:
You want to eventually be on both Android and iPhone. Since you're app is more "app like" if you go native, you'll essentially have to write 2 separate apps to have good user experience (Android and iPhone have vastly different experience guidelines). WIth a mobile-friendly website, you'll satisfy both with one code base
You've already got experience in HTML/CSS/Javascript - definitely a big win!
Since your app will mainly be information consumption, it sounds suitable for a website.
When done correctly, a mobile-friendly website can still be a great experience to use
A couple of things to be aware of...
Don't try and imitate the native UI on the mobile-friendly website. It is a website, not a native app! Users are fine if it doesn't behave like a native app (afterall, they would've just reached your site via the browser). In fact, if you make the website behave sorta like a native app, it might confuse users more. Best direction is to have a good, solid ,easy to use and understand UI. (Be wary of the Uncanny Valley)
Unlike laptops/desktops, mobiles generally are less powerful, so you'll need/want to optimise performance. Make sure the website runs fast & smoothly (ie. optimise resource downloading, minimise/optimise javascript animations etc). Be aware that most phones have a 'click delay' (to detect swipes/drags etc) so you'll want to use something like fastclick to eliminate this.
Remember that on a mobile device your user will be using their fingers (and not a mouse) to click/interact with your website. So make sure tap targets are nice and large.
Finally .... test on a real device! Chrome dev tools etc to simulate phone screens is great for dev, but actually using your website on a mobile will reveal many design decisions that might need to change.
This might sound like a lot to think about, but I think given what you've said about your idea, in the long run, it will be more time efficient. (there is probably a equally long list of things to think about when developing a native app!)
Good luck with your idea
pyko said:
In that case, I would say go for a mobile friendly web-based app, as opposed to a native app. So this would mean HTML/CSS/JavaScript.
Reasons are:
You want to eventually be on both Android and iPhone. Since you're app is more "app like" if you go native, you'll essentially have to write 2 separate apps to have good user experience (Android and iPhone have vastly different experience guidelines). WIth a mobile-friendly website, you'll satisfy both with one code base
You've already got experience in HTML/CSS/Javascript - definitely a big win!
Since your app will mainly be information consumption, it sounds suitable for a website.
When done correctly, a mobile-friendly website can still be a great experience to use
A couple of things to be aware of...
Don't try and imitate the native UI on the mobile-friendly website. It is a website, not a native app! Users are fine if it doesn't behave like a native app (afterall, they would've just reached your site via the browser). In fact, if you make the website behave sorta like a native app, it might confuse users more. Best direction is to have a good, solid ,easy to use and understand UI. (Be wary of the Uncanny Valley)
Unlike laptops/desktops, mobiles generally are less powerful, so you'll need/want to optimise performance. Make sure the website runs fast & smoothly (ie. optimise resource downloading, minimise/optimise javascript animations etc). Be aware that most phones have a 'click delay' (to detect swipes/drags etc) so you'll want to use something like fastclick to eliminate this.
Remember that on a mobile device your user will be using their fingers (and not a mouse) to click/interact with your website. So make sure tap targets are nice and large.
Finally .... test on a real device! Chrome dev tools etc to simulate phone screens is great for dev, but actually using your website on a mobile will reveal many design decisions that might need to change.
This might sound like a lot to think about, but I think given what you've said about your idea, in the long run, it will be more time efficient. (there is probably a equally long list of things to think about when developing a native app!)
Good luck with your idea
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much for your help, I appreciate all the information. One last question on my end.
I'm assuming the development tools would be the same as a usual website (ie. In my case, Dreamweaver?). If you're familiar with Game Dev Tycoon, would a layout /similar style of interaction game b, e capable using only Dreamweaver, or is something else needed?
No worries, more than happy to help
I would actually suggest not using Dreamweaver as for the mobile website, you'll really want to be as lean and minimal as possible. From what I recall, Dreamweaver can add quite a bit of 'cruft' to your code.
I would suggest a standard text editor (recommend: http://www.sublimetext.com/) as that would allow you to have complete control over your code, what you include/exclude, what goes where etc. The mobile site will require that extra attention as you really want to make sure it runs smoothly on the mobile.
In terms of quick dev iteration (making sure the site looks correct) you can use the chrome developer tools (https://developers.google.com/chrome-developer-tools/) which allows you to fake the user agent/screen size etc on your browser. Though nothing beats occasional testing on a real device - just to make sure you're on the right track.
Had a look at Game Dev Tycoon and I would say for something as involved as that (lots of interaction, animations etc) it's better to go down the native route.
pyko said:
No worries, more than happy to help
I would actually suggest not using Dreamweaver as for the mobile website, you'll really want to be as lean and minimal as possible. From what I recall, Dreamweaver can add quite a bit of 'cruft' to your code.
I would suggest a standard text editor (recommend: http://www.sublimetext.com/) as that would allow you to have complete control over your code, what you include/exclude, what goes where etc. The mobile site will require that extra attention as you really want to make sure it runs smoothly on the mobile.
In terms of quick dev iteration (making sure the site looks correct) you can use the chrome developer tools (https://developers.google.com/chrome-developer-tools/) which allows you to fake the user agent/screen size etc on your browser. Though nothing beats occasional testing on a real device - just to make sure you're on the right track.
Had a look at Game Dev Tycoon and I would say for something as involved as that (lots of interaction, animations etc) it's better to go down the native route.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you again. I appreciate all your help.