Mobile2Market Contest for Top Apps

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Microsoft Announces $25,000 Competition for Best Windows Mobile Applications

Submit applications for Windows Mobile-based Pocket PCs and Smartphones to
the Microsoft Mobile2Market Application Contest for a chance to win one of
four grand prizes for US $25,000, application distribution plus featured
promotions. The first 150 to submit before May 30, 2004, receive free
logo-testing - a US $500 value. More info:
www.mobile2market.com/contest/index.asp?s=PRMSU)

 

[Brian H]

Hi Ginny,

Applications must be logo certified? My problem with that is that I
disagree with some of the requirements -- such as "must not show a method
for exiting the application." I don't see why having a File -> Exit is so
bad... (well, apparently you shouldn't have a "file" menu either, but for
the sake of example)

Brian

 

[William Ryan eMVP]

Hi Brian:

Hi Ginny,

Applications must be logo certified? My problem with that is that I
disagree with some of the requirements -- such as "must not show a method
for exiting the application."

If you want to participate but disagree with some of the rules, why not try
submitting a version that conforms in addition to keeping your 'preferred'
version. 25k is a decent amount of cash for just turning a blind eye to
something temporarily.

On another note though...what other requirements do you disagree with?

I don't see why having a File -> Exit is so

bad... (well, apparently you shouldn't have a "file" menu either, but for
the sake of example)

I'd agree that at the onset it may not have made much sense. But since just
about every app out there follows the guidelines, having one that's
different is potentially confusing. Moreover, if allowing people to open
and close the app interferes with the resource management of the app, then
people may falsely attribute performance problems with your app to the PPC.
I'd agree that it seems this is the main place this is a factor and that you
can do all sorts of other inefficient stuff that will hurt performance and
still be compliant but what do you lose by this? I'm not asking
argumentatively, I'm honestly curious about how this affects you.
I've been at two places where this was brought up with MS and suffice to say
I didn't get the feelign they were going to bend on this even though a LOT
of people agree with you on this and think that the inability to have a
close feature is 'weird'. In my experience, I originally considered it
annoying not to have a Close menu but truth be told, it didn't actually
cause me any grief other than I wanted to do it 'my way'. That may or may
not be the case with other scenarios and I'm interested in your thoughts.

As I mentioned originally, what else about their criteria do you disagree
with? From the feeback we've got a www.devbuzz.com and what I've heard in
various NG's, this seems to be the main, and essentially only issue people
have but I'd like to know what other people have come across.

 

[Brian H]

Hi William,

I'd agree, this is my biggest issue, likely the only real gripe I have. The
only other -- and minor -- thing would be not displaying a help button on
the menu bar (if memory serves, I'm not looking at the docs now). But
that's minor.

As to how this affects me: well, it is not very difficult to remove this
from the application. But I just personally feel the method of closing
least-used applications by the OS was a mistake. I understand the theory
behind it, I just haven't seen it work in a practical way. Based on what
you've said, and the number of applications out there that change this
behavior, it seems most people agree So it really is just personal
preference.

The other question I was raising in my post was re: logo testing. With a
freeware application, should I not be lucky enough to get the free testing
by being one of the first 150, there's no way I'd pony up the $500. That's
why I was questioning the requirement...

Brian

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Brian,

For what it's worth, I agree with you about the logo requirement for no
close on the menu. It's fine for PDA-type apps and games, but it really
doesn't make sense to me for business apps. I hope Microsoft will rethink
this requirement in the future.

 

[William Ryan eMVP]

I think it was a silly thing at the onset but they've made such a big deal
out of it, and every other app now leaves it out that I've come to 'agree'
with it only for the sake of standardization. With that said, I think it's
silly that it got that far and whenever you are in a situation where doing
something silly is justified for no other reason than it's become a standard
and breaking it would potentially lead to more problems, you know your (mine
in this case) argument is weak.

I was at an event a few months back where more than a few people voiced
their displeasure over this feature. They were quite sarcastic about it,
and it was brought up in a different context whenever the question was asked
"What features would you like to see in future releases". It had obviously
been brought up before. I got the feeling that there is probably some (see
negligible) merit to the performance concern and I manually shut my stuff
off all the time. Moreover, throughout beta testing of our flaghsip
product, I didn't know about this requirement so I had an exit button and
people used it, Really liked it, commented that it was cool that it had it
b/c no other apps did etc. Then I found out it was a no no and took it out.
Users definitely complained.

The funny part about it is that not only did MS make this requirement, I had
a few people point out that it's really difficult navigationally to get to
the memory tab to kill the app and that this was also be design to keep
people from 'cheating'.

Anyway, that may or may not be true but considering how many clicks it
takes, it's not hard to believe.... And that's the point I realized that
there was wayyyyyy too much personality and ego involved and someone in
development really has their emotional security wrapped up in it.

Many folks rip MS about many things and I've found much of it unfounded.
And with 99% of the issues I've ever discussed or heard discussed with MS,
they really seemed concerned with our gripes and dislikes. This issue was
different and they almost seemed mad that anyone dare mention it again. I
may have mispercieved it, but I really doubt it. And to date, this is the
only thing I can think of where MS seemed so willing to flaunt that they
weren't going to change something no matter how much users wanted it changed
or how valid their concerns were.

Has your experience been the same? What do you think about the whole issue
that's it's in place now, it's been pounded on over and over so there's some
merit to just letting it be (I can't believe I'm actually making that
argument - next thing you know I'll be arguing the virtues of
non -normalized data and claiming we shouldn't change because that's the way
we always did it ;-))

If nothing else, I think this is a pretty interesting discussion...

Thanks Ginny!

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Hi Bill,

I really haven't had any discussions with Microsoft people about this (IMO
also silly) logo requirement. But I decided that my users' interest in being
able to easily close my apps was greater than their interest in purchasing a
logo certified app, so I have my solution. ;-) Maybe other developers of
business apps just do the same.

Perhaps this will be less of an issue with CFv2 and especially SqlServer
Mobile Edition, which will allow multiuser access into a database. And if I
wrote games or PIM apps, I'd probably prefer the smart minimize - at least
after I'd finished debugging it.

 

[Brian H]

I agree -- knowing the rules, and when to bend them. So do you plan on
submitting any of your applications to this contest? If so, are you
planning on removing the exit functionality?

 

[Chris Tacke, eMVP]

I think it's also important to ask *why* the requirement is there. What was
the reasoning behind it?

It goes back to the early days of PPC and the competition with Palm. Early
PPCs were slow and apps did not launch quickly. On a Palm, it's essentially
"instant on" because the OS simply vectors into the app executable and runs
there. There are no other threads to worry about.

In an effort to make PPCs seem to perform as well as a Palm, they decided
that if the app never actually ended, the user would take a load hit the
first time, but after that it would just come to the fore and be as
responsive as a Palm.

I personally dislike it too, and I'd rather exit the app and wait for a new
instance, but that's where this came from.

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Hi Chris,

Good point about the Palm competition. I find I'm annoyed how long it takes
my Samsung phone to boot -- my RedE SmartPhone is quicker. Now if I could
just get a SmartPhone for my CDMA carrier...
--
Ginny Caughey
..Net Compact Framework MVP

I think it's also important to ask *why* the requirement is there. What was
the reasoning behind it?

It goes back to the early days of PPC and the competition with Palm. Early
PPCs were slow and apps did not launch quickly. On a Palm, it's essentially
"instant on" because the OS simply vectors into the app executable and runs
there. There are no other threads to worry about.

In an effort to make PPCs seem to perform as well as a Palm, they decided
that if the app never actually ended, the user would take a load hit the
first time, but after that it would just come to the fore and be as
responsive as a Palm.

I personally dislike it too, and I'd rather exit the app and wait for a new
instance, but that's where this came from.

--
Chris Tacke, eMVP
Co-Founder and Advisory Board Member
www.OpenNETCF.org
---
Windows CE Product Manager
Applied Data Systems
www.applieddata.net

I think it was a silly thing at the onset but they've made such a big deal
out of it, and every other app now leaves it out that I've come to 'agree'
with it only for the sake of standardization. With that said, I think it's
silly that it got that far and whenever you are in a situation where doing
something silly is justified for no other reason than it's become a standard
and breaking it would potentially lead to more problems, you know your (mine
in this case) argument is weak.

I was at an event a few months back where more than a few people voiced
their displeasure over this feature. They were quite sarcastic about it,
and it was brought up in a different context whenever the question was asked
"What features would you like to see in future releases". It had obviously
been brought up before. I got the feeling that there is probably some (see
negligible) merit to the performance concern and I manually shut my stuff
off all the time. Moreover, throughout beta testing of our flaghsip
product, I didn't know about this requirement so I had an exit button and
people used it, Really liked it, commented that it was cool that it had it
b/c no other apps did etc. Then I found out it was a no no and took it out.
Users definitely complained.

The funny part about it is that not only did MS make this requirement, I had
a few people point out that it's really difficult navigationally to get to
the memory tab to kill the app and that this was also be design to keep
people from 'cheating'.

Anyway, that may or may not be true but considering how many clicks it
takes, it's not hard to believe.... And that's the point I realized that
there was wayyyyyy too much personality and ego involved and someone in
development really has their emotional security wrapped up in it.

Many folks rip MS about many things and I've found much of it unfounded.
And with 99% of the issues I've ever discussed or heard discussed with MS,
they really seemed concerned with our gripes and dislikes. This issue was
different and they almost seemed mad that anyone dare mention it again. I
may have mispercieved it, but I really doubt it. And to date, this is the
only thing I can think of where MS seemed so willing to flaunt that they
weren't going to change something no matter how much users wanted it changed
or how valid their concerns were.

Has your experience been the same? What do you think about the whole issue
that's it's in place now, it's been pounded on over and over so there's some
merit to just letting it be (I can't believe I'm actually making that
argument - next thing you know I'll be arguing the virtues of
non -normalized data and claiming we shouldn't change because that's the way
we always did it ;-))

If nothing else, I think this is a pretty interesting discussion...

Thanks Ginny!
button
on With

that

I why
not either,
but and
that suffice

though

a have

may

or

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Brian,

I hadn't planned on submitting any of my apps since they're so specific to
the businesses they're designed for, but I would indeed have to remove the
exit functionality if I did so. Still, $25000 is a lot of money for just
changing MinimizeBox to true. <g>

 

[Milosz - [playseven.com]]

the contest is only for "Software Vendors located in the United States, the
United Kingdom, and Canada" ....
why is that ? i'm not located in these countries but would like to take part
of it ..

regards

Milosz

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Milosz,

I don't know the answer, sorry. Perhaps somebody from Microsoft will
respond. (And you're not the first person who's asked me that question.)

 

[Reloader]

ÐÏÛ£Ì ×ÏÎ ÉÚ ÍÏÅÊ ËÏÎÆÅÒÅÎÃÉÉ

 

[Alex Feinman [MVP]]

ñ ÉÓËÒÅÎÎÅ ÎÁÄÅÀÓØ, ÞÔÏ ÜÔÏ ÂÙÌÏ ÓÌÕÞÁÊÎÏ

 

[Reloader]

ÓÌÕÞÁÊÎÅÅ ÎÅËÕÄÁ(

 

[Ginny Caughey [MVP]]

Here's some updated information:
http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2004/04/28/122452.aspx
Note that the guys at Mobile2Market are in the process of globalizing the
contest and welcome feedback.