I vibe-coded an Android app using Google

marsbit发布于2026-05-23更新于2026-05-23

文章摘要

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.

相关问答

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.

你可能也喜欢

Sharplink CEO:现在清仓ETH,就像互联网泡沫时卖掉亚马逊

本文是对Sharplink CEO Joseph Chalom文章《Ethereum Going Back on Offense》的编译与摘要。针对近期以太坊社区因Bankless联创清仓ETH引发的悲观情绪,Chalom以资深金融从业者(前贝莱德高管)和大型ETH持仓公司CEO的身份,试图提振市场信心,并提出不同视角。 Chalom的核心观点如下: 1. **以太坊基本面坚实**:他认为当前市场争议是噪音,以太坊在信任、安全和流动性上已遥遥领先,处理着全球主要稳定币结算和大部分代币化资产,这是以太坊基金会(EF)长期专注核心协议开发(如The Merge、EIP-1559等重大升级)的结果。 2. **去中心化是优势,非缺陷**:EF专注协议安全与去中心化,这正是机构信任的基础。以太坊的可信中立性是其成为未来金融结算层的核心,不应被视作弱点。 3. **将ETH类比互联网泡沫时的亚马逊**:他认为当前市场低估了ETH,就像当年市场只关注亚马逊亏损而忽视其重塑零售和云计算的愿景。以太坊的目标市场是全球金融体系,其价值将随网络处理稳定币、RWA、DeFi等交易量的爆发性增长而提升。 4. **建议逆向投资**:他指出市场极度恐惧时(恐惧与贪婪指数为证),正是纪律资本布局优质资产的良机,应学习巴菲特和贝莱德在危机中逆势投资的智慧。 5. **呼吁生态积极发声**:Chalom承认以太坊在市场推广层面存在领导力问题,并呼吁Sharplink等生态利益相关者更积极地构建叙事、推动机构采用。他透露Sharplink已质押数十亿美元ETH,并投资DeFi协议及成立相关基金。 文末,Chalom总结道:以太坊的未来正在此刻发生,EF正回归其核心职责(专注于CROPS框架,即审查阻力、开放性、隐私和安全),而生态需共同推动机构采用的超级周期。

marsbit13分钟前

Sharplink CEO:现在清仓ETH,就像互联网泡沫时卖掉亚马逊

marsbit13分钟前

交易

现货
合约

热门文章

如何购买S

欢迎来到HTX.com!我们已经让购买Sonic(S)变得简单而便捷。跟随我们的逐步指南,放心开始您的加密货币之旅。第一步:创建您的HTX账户使用您的电子邮件、手机号码注册一个免费账户在HTX上。体验无忧的注册过程并解锁所有平台功能。立即注册第二步:前往买币页面,选择您的支付方式信用卡/借记卡购买:使用您的Visa或Mastercard即时购买Sonic(S)。余额购买:使用您HTX账户余额中的资金进行无缝交易。第三方购买:探索诸如Google Pay或Apple Pay等流行支付方法以增加便利性。C2C购买:在HTX平台上直接与其他用户交易。HTX场外交易台(OTC)购买:为大量交易者提供个性化服务和竞争性汇率。第三步:存储您的Sonic(S)购买完您的Sonic(S)后,将其存储在您的HTX账户钱包中。您也可以通过区块链转账将其发送到其他地方或者用于交易其他加密货币。第四步:交易Sonic(S)在HTX的现货市场轻松交易Sonic(S)。访问您的账户,选择您的交易对,执行您的交易,并实时监控。HTX为初学者和经验丰富的交易者提供了友好的用户体验。

2.3k人学过发布于 2025.01.15更新于 2025.03.21

如何购买S

相关讨论

欢迎来到HTX社区。在这里,您可以了解最新的平台发展动态并获得专业的市场意见。以下是用户对S(S)币价的意见。

活动图片