If it's just me developing. No testers and no current user base--purely personal:

Pencil and paper.

This device will be slow to adopt and I think that is alright. I don't have NFC on my phone, but I bet in a year or so, my phone will have it. Google doesn't want to wait for NFC to be common place before attempting to have applications and solutions for it (Google Wallet/Pay). I suspect Google is implementing this device/system as a means to eventually see us paying for groceries, dinners, bus fare, etc with our Android based phones rather than simply making playlists.

Most every responder is missing the point of the question asked in the original post: it wants people to give ideas on what will help the poster (or anyone else who reaps the feedback) to create a version of Pong that will add ~100K to their wallet.

I think the best kind of remakes are ones that still look like the original but have improvements from modern technology that the original authors would have used in the game to make it better (not just add !@#$).

Always good to be cross-platform, but I think the device version that will shine here is the iPad (and any other tablet). Because Pong is a multiplayer game--I don't think anyone would have given a crap about Pong had it not had the same two player feel of tennis (wall ball
Keep the blocky look. Maybe add effects for each level that apply effects to the blocky look to give it variety (color, glowing, strobe effects, disco. Provide background effects at time, but don't let it distract from the game--make it make sense (like when a score is made). Apply CRT emulation, for sure (trails, fuzzy, bleeding).

Again, 2+ multiplayer is key. I think it would be a cool improvement for 4+ player play to have it to where the paddles bend around the corners of the board. Or maybe not necessary--but have players on the side line, keeping the ball from going outside horizontal bounds. 'Doubles' was a classic upgrade to Pong--that could be done as well with some interface creativity.

Lastly, I wouldn't get too hung up on the iOS only contest criteria. I suspect its a minimum requirement. If you make a version that will also be sellable on the Android market, the judges will see extra $$$. And it appears as though they already see that money enough to drop 100K.

I grow tired of developers crying that the Android landscape is too vast for them to support. This diversity is not unlike PCs over the last 20-30 years. IBM compatibles could have any combination of memory, graphics & sound cards, with either a mouse/joystick or just a keyboard. Back in the 8-bit days, sure most of the machines were either 6502s or Z80s, but the per machine specs (Atari, Commodore, NES, Apple, Spectrum, etc) varied greatly and the developer had nothing like abstraction layers/libraries like OpenGL, Coco, or a VM. Particularly in the 8-bit days, individual or small team indie developers flourished.

What the developers didn't have what we do today is the Internet and massive online outlets like Android Marketplace and the App Store. Meaning, the real advantage of both platforms are the same--massive publicity.

So, let whatever developer who wants to cater to a single audience do so while the truly passionate and skilled developers reap the benefit of targeting nearly every platform simultaneously. There are good ways of tackling the bear of supporting multiple hardware, but it involves practices that, although proven to be effective, are seemingly undesirable to coders with too much pride.

Yes. I agree with this notion. Even a note evoked from a piano has a micro-level set of patterns. It not only would take a mathematician to create this music, but it would also require a computer and a software engineer to create pattern-free waveforms. Then I figure it would break the definition of music altogether--it wouldn't be ugly music; it'd be noise.

It's pretty common these days for companies to outwardly claim they do not subject their customers to automated phone tech support, because most people despise dealing with it. Suddenly, Apple 'invents' voice recognition and we are supposed to think it's cool now.

The truth is voice recognition is cool and it is the future, but it's not the end all be all--not any more than automated doors or toilets. There are plenty of situations where voice recognition can't be used because you either need to be really quiet or silent or there is simply too much sound around you. Not every door or window or light or appliance is automated (although they could be) these days because there are inherent risks and human-error related downsides to having everything automated. Voice recognition is handy, but it won't be used to even do a small majority of our computing.

The Linux return rate is clearly people assuming computer equals Windows. It's hard to deny most people expect to use a computer the way they've been accustomed to doing so.

But you can't use that defense with tablets and smart-phones. The way Apple has been able to keep Flash from its iOS devices is clearly evidence that people don't have the same expectations for these "new" devices. You expect a desktop/laptop to be able to run Flash. It's obvious that the manufacturer and consumer base acknowledges that the market does not have to be a mono-platform environment. So, Linux certainly has the opportunity to at least heavily compete with Windows mobile.

I'm just throwing this out there: I don't know anything about either API's; but, why not keep the Buzz interface and allow all existing Buzz enabled clients/sites to keep "Buzzing" and just pipe the posts to G+?

I was confused why the two weren't consolidated on day one. But I guess that was Google not being too confident about either service... too bad.

In the case of record to cassette, cassette to compact disc (or floppy disk for that matter ;) ), VHS to DVD, floppy to USB/flash (which I think is more true), floppy to CD-ROM, backup tape to CDR/DVDR, there was a change in technology that added affordability and conveniences. Note that, for this reason, I didn't mention DVD to Blueray. More specifically, it was a change from one physical format to another.

It's hard to say that the move from DVD to streaming online is in the same sense a change in physical format. The idea of streaming is conceptually different than any mobile storage solution. I say mobile because that's what those mediums are. They move from the factory to the publisher to the distributor to the customer to their computer/media device. This movement still happens but it cuts out alot of middlemen; where the concern is that the middleman includes the customer or end user.

Streaming is mobile because we ourselves move with our mobile devices while the central storage point stays relatively stationary. No longer are we able to pocket or hold the actual source of information/data/media. This actually restricts the kind of mobility that makes those original mediums good: the ability to lend and make backups (essentially insurance for your investments).

I'd say these drastic changes are something to be concerned about. I won't go into my personal opinion on the subject.

Actually Zuckerberg does the killing himself. However the Winkelvoss twins claim the kills for themselves.

I think Tennessee Bill's existence itself challenges evolution!

Does this suggest that the end of the world will coincide with the depletion of IPv4 addresses?

I'm no lawyer or politician, but could this perhaps be legislation made in response to the recent Wikileaks fiasco?

Indeed. I have been waiting for one of the current Linux supporting players (Amazon and Hulu) to step into the ring and challenge Netflix. I quit my Netflix subscription at one point and vowed not to return until Linux was supported.

However, it seems like Hulu is content with occupying it's own semi-current tv streaming market while Netflix controls the movie streaming market for the most part.

Oddly, I've had the impression that Amazon was happy trying to be the Blockbuster of the internet, only using the comparably overpriced rental service as a bonus to purchasing through Amazon in general. It still seems like just a way to keep the physical item purchasing through Amazon relevant with shipping bonuses. But, this service is more comparable and competitive and definitely has the ability to be a decent competitor.

Steve Jobs is the Elvis of the personal computer. Will people claim that Jobs lives after he dies?

But unlike Elvis, all these stock fears seem to suggest he is worth more alive than dead. Therefore, if Jobs' possible passing is being kept secret for financial reasons, then shame on anyone involved in the secrecy--it actually does not speak on the value of his life but that of Apple. Rather, if his possible passing is being kept secret for privacy reasons and respect for him and his family, I am as well as everyone else should be satisfied and content.

I have much more respect for Steve Jobs than I do with Apple. Notice how I make a distinction between the two. Not enough people do, unfortunately. And if we were purposely led to believe that there is no Apple without Steve Jobs, well shame on those people who pushed that idea.

And if Jobs was part of that idea, then perhaps the best thing he can do is say goodbye and resign before he passes, not the other way around.

I have no interest in using or developing for Apple products, but I hope Jobs recovers. This is all being played like a game of poker: the very notion that this is being kept secret is more or less a good sign, meant to keep others from folding their hands in the hope that they have a good hand (which can be likened to Steve returning).