I vibe-coded an Android app using Google

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-05-23Обновлено 2026-05-23

Введение

In a hands-on experience, Google AI Studio's new "prompt to phone" feature allows users to generate functional Android apps using natural language prompts. The author created three apps in one afternoon: a text-based adventure game called MOOD, a calorie counter, and a Super Mario-style game featuring Peach. The process involved describing the app concept, letting Gemini AI generate the code and interface, and then installing it directly onto a connected phone. While the apps were generated and installed quickly, their quality varied significantly. The text adventure was simplistic and buggy, the calorie counter provided inaccurate data due to flawed logic, and the platformer was prone to crashes. The AI could efficiently fix specific, identifiable bugs through follow-up prompts. However, the experience highlighted that while AI can rapidly prototype "working" software, creating reliable, accurate, and polished applications still requires human oversight, judgment, and iteration. The tool dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for personal software creation but doesn't yet replace the need for developer expertise in the final stages of quality and refinement.

Editor's Note: Google AI Studio is bringing AI programming to a more intuitive stage: users are no longer just having models 'write code', but can directly generate an Android application using natural language and install it on a real phone within minutes. From entering a prompt in the browser, to Gemini automatically generating code, designing interfaces, fixing bugs, to the app appearing on the device, the barrier to software development is being lowered even further.

The Verge author Sean Hollister recently experienced the 'prompt to phone' capability of Google AI Studio. He created three apps in one afternoon, including a text adventure game, a calorie calculator, and a Mario-like mini-game, with almost no need to write code himself, and some bugs could be quickly fixed by continuing the conversation. This experience shows that AI programming tools are moving from development environments closer to consumer-facing scenarios for ordinary users.

This is also the most imaginative aspect of the 'personal software revolution.' In the past, ordinary users could only wait for developers to create general products; now, they might be able to generate a fitness tracker, calorie calculator, or even a simple game on the fly according to their specific needs. For Google, this isn't just a demonstration of AI programming capability; it could also be a new entry point for Gemini into the mobile ecosystem, developer community, and subscription revenue.

However, this experience also illustrates that AI-generated applications still have a significant gap to truly mature. It can quickly produce a 'working' program but not necessarily a reliable, accurate, or user-friendly product: game narratives are crude, mechanics are thin, calorie data can be severely miscalculated, and the Mario-like mini-game even crashes repeatedly. More complex issues also include copyright boundaries, data sources, product judgment, and long-term maintenance capabilities.

What's truly worth paying attention to is not whether AI can already replace developers, but that the starting point of software production is changing. Google has proven that it's becoming a reality for ordinary people to create mobile apps using prompts; but from 'generating an app' to 'making a good app,' human professional experience, aesthetic judgment, and continuous iteration are still required in between. AI can significantly accelerate development speed, but the final mile of software quality can't be handed off—at least not yet.

Here is the original article:

Yesterday, I made my first Android app. Then, I made two more—three apps in one afternoon.

For one of the apps, I essentially just typed 148 English words into a web browser and then walked away. Ten minutes later, a brand new, complete app had appeared on my real Android phone. Of course, I did need to prepare the phone beforehand: enable USB debugging mode and connect it to my computer. But aside from that, as Google advertised, AI Studio did almost all the work for me.

I typed, clicked install, and then—voilà—a fully functioning program appeared. At that moment, I was almost ready to agree with David, Allison, and Jen's assessment: the personal software revolution has arrived, and it's entering your phone. In the future, even without programming skills, ordinary people might be able to get complex smart home device systems truly up and running.

Then, I started actually using these three apps: a calorie counter and two games. It turned out, they didn't perform very well. And just as I was beginning to enjoy iterating and trying to improve them, AI Studio reminded me that I had reached my daily usage limit. Next, I would either have to pay or wait for the quota to reset.

So, friction still exists. But there's no denying what an individual can accomplish nowadays is quite astonishing. That same morning, my colleague Stevie Bonifield also made a personal fitness tracker app, and he thought it was good enough to actually use. Faced with Gemini's pop-up prompt to upgrade to a paid plan, my first instinct was actually: 'Should I pay for a few months first?' That's not a reaction I would have expected myself to have towards a Google product.

How Google's AI Studio Builds an Android App

On Tuesday, when Google showed off using AI to write a game similar to Doom, we joked that I should make a game called MOOD. It would be a text adventure game like Doom, with MOOD standing for 'Modern Online Oratory Dungeon.'

Just this information was enough for Google to get to work. After I typed into AI Studio: 'Help me make a Doom-style text adventure game called MOOD, with MOOD standing for Modern Online Oratory Dungeon,' Gemini started automatically supplementing more ideas, trying to expand on my concept. It first typed a sentence: 'The game should feature procedurally generated levels and challenging turn-based combat.'

I didn't want randomly generated levels that were completely different each time—I wanted a classic text adventure where players explore a designed, real map structure. Turn-based combat, though, was acceptable. Maybe the game could also have AI help me auto-generate the map?

Then, Gemini suggested more settings like 'secrets hidden in rooms' and 'a satisfying progression system.' Most of the time, I just nodded along with its ideas.

Before I let it start writing code, the final prompt was this:

Next, it officially went on a full sprint. My colleague Jake pointed out that unlike Claude Code, Gemini doesn't make a plan first and then ask if you want to proceed. It automatically pushes forward—though you can check the code it writes at any time if you want.

One minute later, it had already generated five design prototypes for me:

Twenty minutes later, I pressed the 'Install' button, transferring the game to a Pixel 9 phone.

Unsurprisingly, the writing was terrible. There were also no demons to be seen anywhere. The entire dungeon had only 11 rooms, and players could 'beat' it just by repeatedly mashing the attack button—in under a minute if played seriously. At least now it could; before that, Gemini had to help me fix two critical bugs that made the game unplayable.

Here's MOOD in action:

It wasn't a huge surprise to discover that Gemini's promised 'engaging narrative with branching dialogue options and multiple endings' eventually condensed into a simple branch at the very end of the game: I could defeat the 'Core Orator'—an AI that somehow turns internet anger into corporate profits—by attacking it, fusing with it, or entering a backdoor password.

Furthermore, the game actively exposed all the promised 'secrets' directly to the player: it made them into glowing buttons, and players didn't even need to type any text. When you encounter a glowing treasure chest, the game tries incredibly hard to remind you it's actually a Mimic—the classic Dungeons & Dragons monster that disguises itself as a treasure chest.

It not only explicitly warns you to 'check the chest at your own risk,' but even labels it as an enemy and doesn't let me leave, because the system prompts: 'A hostile ‘Clickbait Mimic’ is blocking the path!'

Speaking of which, MOOD will even tell you the backdoor password needed to unlock the hidden ending when you need it.

However, the bug-fixing process could be surprisingly smooth, provided it was a bug Gemini could correctly identify. When I told it the game got stuck when talking to 'The Whistleblower' because the button to end the conversation was missing, it immediately generated a new version of the app. I pressed 'Install,' the app on my phone restarted automatically, and upon re-entering the game, I found myself right where I left off—only this time, the button I needed was there.

My other apps probably needed more polishing. The calorie counter's best method for determining a food's calories turned out to be calling the paid Gemini API, which I don't have a key for. When I asked it to search for information from other databases instead, I discovered that its estimates for many foods were severely low.

However, when I told Gemini that a 16-ounce boba milk tea couldn't possibly be only 190 calories, it did seem to find that basic mistake in its own code. It previously thought 'milk' was enough to match 'boba milk tea,' and worse, it chose low-calorie 1% milk as the basis for the estimate. Gemini claimed it would now perform more reliable matching.

But even so, my 3-ounce serving of Taiwanese popcorn chicken was just calculated as 140 calories, and I'm pretty sure the real number is at least double that. So, this app clearly needed more work.

Finally, and least importantly, I felt I needed to test: whether Google still allows users to make those terrible Nintendo knock-off games, like my colleague Jay Peters did earlier this year with Project Genie; or whether Google had learned its lesson.

With deep shame, I present to you—Super Peach Rescue:

This is an utterly terrible program. Princess Peach was rendered as some kind of terrifying, one-eyed floating alien, and the game would instantly crash—every single time—if she dared touch any of the power-up blocks. So far, Gemini hasn't been able to figure out why.

Also, the second pipe in the game is completely impassable because Princess Peach simply can't jump that high.

Nevertheless, Gemini didn't hesitate when generating such a game. My request was: 'Make a working Super Mario game where I play as Princess Peach rescuing Mario, with all the elements of a traditional Mario side-scroller.' In a sense, it did.

It even proactively suggested that I could 'give Peach a series of classic Mario power-ups like Super Mushroom, Fire Flower, and Starman.' It also labeled the control scheme as 'NES System.' I think I'll delete this game.

At least, among the two games I made via vibe coding, one was playable from the start and required almost no effort on my part—unless you count the psychological trauma of thinking about how many game developers are now unemployed.

To be clear: I'm actually glad the games I vibe-coded turned out so poor. For a completely free, personally-tailored calorie counter, I might still be able to defend myself: after all, no one would make such a tool just for me. But when it comes to games, I'd rather spend my time supporting actual human creators.

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the core capability demonstrated by Google AI Studio in this article, and what did the author create with it?

AThe article demonstrates Google AI Studio's ability to generate functional Android applications directly from natural language prompts, a process the author refers to as 'vibe coding.' Using this, the author created three applications: a text-based adventure game called 'MOOD,' a calorie counter, and a poorly functioning Super Mario-style game where Princess Peach rescues Mario.

QWhat are some of the main advantages and significant drawbacks of using AI to generate applications as described in the experience?

AAdvantages include drastically lowering the barrier to software creation, allowing non-coders to quickly generate apps tailored to personal needs, and a remarkably smooth bug-fixing process for issues the AI can identify. Major drawbacks are that the generated apps are often unreliable, inaccurate, or have poor quality: the games had thin narratives and mechanics, the calorie counter gave severely low estimates, and the Mario clone crashed frequently. Complex issues like copyright, data sourcing, and long-term maintenance also remain unresolved.

QDescribe the process of creating and installing the 'MOOD' game. What were some of its shortcomings?

AThe author entered a 148-word prompt into Google AI Studio. Gemini expanded on the idea and, without needing prior planning confirmation, generated code and multiple UI prototypes. About 20 minutes later, the author pressed 'Install' to transfer the APK to a connected Pixel 9 phone. The game's shortcomings included terrible writing, only 11 rooms, simplistic combat (just spamming an attack button to win), a lack of demons as suggested by the 'Doom-like' prompt, and a poorly implemented narrative that directly revealed all secrets and gave away puzzle solutions.

QHow did the AI handle bug fixes during the app creation process, according to the author's experience?

AThe bug-fixing process was described as surprisingly smooth for issues the AI could correctly diagnose. For example, when the 'MOOD' game got stuck because a dialog exit button was missing, the author reported the issue. Gemini then generated a new version of the app. After installation, the app restarted on the phone, and the author resumed play from the same point—but with the necessary button now present.

QWhat broader implications does the author suggest this 'personal software revolution' might have, while also highlighting its current limitations?

AThe author suggests this could enable a 'personal software revolution' where individuals can generate apps for specific, niche needs (like a custom fitness tracker or calorie counter) without waiting for developers. For Google, it represents a potential new entry point into mobile, developer ecosystems, and subscription revenue via Gemini. However, the key limitation is the gap between 'generating an app' and 'making a good app.' The author concludes that while AI can accelerate the starting point of development, the 'last mile' of software quality—requiring human expertise, aesthetic judgment, and iteration—cannot yet be handed off to AI.

Похожее

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbit5 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbit5 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手8 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手8 ч. назад

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbit8 ч. назад

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbit8 ч. назад

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbit9 ч. назад

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbit9 ч. назад

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

The price of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.5 series API has been permanently reduced by up to 99%, specifically for the "Input (Cache Hit)" cost, which covers users re-reading historical context in long conversations. MiMo's head, Luo Fuli, published a detailed technical blog to clarify that this drastic price cut stems from genuine engineering breakthroughs, not a marketing stunt or a simple price war. The core of the achievement lies in six key engineering optimizations. First, the model architecture adopts a Hybrid Sliding Window Attention (SWA), reducing the memory footprint (KVCache) to 1/7th of a traditional model. Second, a dual-pool memory management system actually utilizes these savings, allowing a single GPU to handle over 5 times more concurrent users. Third, an upgraded prefix caching mechanism achieves a cache hit rate of 93-95% for repeated reads, meaning most such requests bypass GPU computation entirely. Fourth, a self-developed distributed cache (GCache) utilizes idle SSD space on existing GPU servers, eliminating additional storage costs. Fifth, an intelligent scheduling system (LLM-Router) efficiently routes requests to maximize cache reuse and performance. Sixth, Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) accelerates the model's text generation ("output") side. Together, these systemic optimizations dramatically lower the real computational cost per request, enabling the 99% price reduction for cached inputs while reportedly maintaining positive gross margins. Luo Fuli's disclosure aims to shift the narrative from "price war" to a demonstration of substantive AI engineering progress.

marsbit10 ч. назад

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

marsbit10 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы

Популярные статьи

Как купить S

Добро пожаловать на HTX.com! Мы сделали приобретение Sonic (S) простым и удобным. Следуйте нашему пошаговому руководству и отправляйтесь в свое крипто-путешествие.Шаг 1: Создайте аккаунт на HTXИспользуйте свой адрес электронной почты или номер телефона, чтобы зарегистрироваться и бесплатно создать аккаунт на HTX. Пройдите удобную регистрацию и откройте для себя весь функционал.Создать аккаунтШаг 2: Перейдите в Купить криптовалюту и выберите свой способ оплатыКредитная/Дебетовая Карта: Используйте свою карту Visa или Mastercard для мгновенной покупки Sonic (S).Баланс: Используйте средства с баланса вашего аккаунта HTX для простой торговли.Третьи Лица: Мы добавили популярные способы оплаты, такие как Google Pay и Apple Pay, для повышения удобства.P2P: Торгуйте напрямую с другими пользователями на HTX.Внебиржевая Торговля (OTC): Мы предлагаем индивидуальные услуги и конкурентоспособные обменные курсы для трейдеров.Шаг 3: Хранение Sonic (S)После приобретения вами Sonic (S) храните их в своем аккаунте на HTX. В качестве альтернативы вы можете отправить их куда-либо с помощью перевода в блокчейне или использовать для торговли с другими криптовалютами.Шаг 4: Торговля Sonic (S)С легкостью торгуйте Sonic (S) на спотовом рынке HTX. Просто зайдите в свой аккаунт, выберите торговую пару, совершайте сделки и следите за ними в режиме реального времени. Мы предлагаем удобный интерфейс как для начинающих, так и для опытных трейдеров.

1.4k просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2025.01.15Обновлено 2025.03.21

Как купить S

Sonic: Обновления под руководством Андре Кронье – новая звезда Layer-1 на фоне спада рынка

Он решает проблемы масштабируемости, совместимости между блокчейнами и стимулов для разработчиков с помощью технологических инноваций.

2.3k просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2025.04.09Обновлено 2025.04.09

Sonic: Обновления под руководством Андре Кронье – новая звезда Layer-1 на фоне спада рынка

HTX Learn: Пройдите обучение по "Sonic" и разделите 1000 USDT

HTX Learn — ваш проводник в мир перспективных проектов, и мы запускаем специальное мероприятие "Учитесь и Зарабатывайте", посвящённое этим проектам. Наше новое направление .

1.8k просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2025.04.10Обновлено 2025.04.10

HTX Learn: Пройдите обучение по "Sonic" и разделите 1000 USDT

Обсуждения

Добро пожаловать в Сообщество HTX. Здесь вы сможете быть в курсе последних новостей о развитии платформы и получить доступ к профессиональной аналитической информации о рынке. Мнения пользователей о цене на S (S) представлены ниже.

活动图片