>>I never said that any of the initial terms (aside from the $, which I believe we all agree isn't practical) were unfair.

I didn't think Mike Cole was quoting you. But if the rules were fair, why do you need to add extras? ;-)

Re the $ : to do this properly will require a considerable time investment by the contestants. The additional risk of a $25,000 loss is quite a disincentive. If the purse were provided by some other party, it would be much better- winner takes a $25,000 prize, runner-up walks away with remorse but no financial damage. In my younger days I might have offered to stump up a few quid myself, but as I grow old and weary I feel a sense of wry humor at the suggestion rather than the thrill of a meaningful wager. Sorry about that ;-)

>> Just needed clarification, and a few needed to be added.

What's to clarify? It's a broad challenge with a scope to be refined by a 3rd party. under the circumstances the only obvious justification for the implementation rules you propose is to handicap the challenger. Why do you need to do that?

FWIW, I agree that an entry that includes options for handheld devices may well be compelling. Without the scope it is difficult to say. But again I would urge that if one or both contestants feels that such a facility is indicated and can be delivered without breaking the development/maintenance goals, they should include it in their entry rather than making rules about it before the scope is even set.