
Two Kiwi students shine in Apple's global coding competition
Alex Liang from Westlake Boys High School and Ben Lawrence from Kaiapoi High School were named among the 350 winning submissions from the tech giant's global competition associated with the Worldwide Developers Conference.
Applicants span the globe, representing 38 countries and regions, and incorporating a wide range of tools and technologies.
Liang's entry called Make A Wish follows his success last year as the only winner from New Zealand, this time using maths to predict a meteor path, track it in the sky and capture pictures of meteor showers from a phone, rather than a meteor camera.
He said he vividly remembered standing outside in May 2021, holding his mother's phone up for three hours and being "very happy and proud of myself" when he finally captured a meteor on camera — but it was time consuming.
ADVERTISEMENT
"My app is focused on meteors because many people actually try to see meteors and then try to take a picture of it. Right now, the cheapest way to capture a meteor without having to endure it is to use a meteor camera."
Alex Liang demonstrates his app to a fellow student. (Source: Supplied)
For Liang, it's the second year in a row that he has been named as a winner and he said there had been a "very clear rise" in the number and calibre of applicants this year, and in the use of Artificial Intelligence.
"And so this year, unlike last year, I mentioned little planets, which was no AI at all. But this year I did actually implement AI/machine learning in the form of object detection."
Liang said he was "not surprised at all" that Apple had decided to allow the use of AI in the competition this year but all usage had to be disclosed.
"In fact, I was expecting it. Without AI, many of the things from the app I made would not be possible.
"I use it to bump up my efficiency sometimes because I do actually use AI to debug and stuff and then sometimes to create new features or learn new frameworks. But using it does not mean you have to rely entirely on it.
ADVERTISEMENT
"You have to understand your code top to bottom, every single line, not just saying 'hey GPT do something for me, just write me an app that's doing this'. And AI is not able to create things like that just by saying one word."
Liang said planning was already underway for next year's entry, and Make A Wish was being reviewed by Apple to be added to the App Store.
"Words cannot describe the experience. I felt like I stepped up to the whole next level of not just astronomy, but innovation. It is something I'm very profound about, something I'm very happy about."
Helping money make 'Good Cents'
Ben Lawrence pictured using his app, Good Cents. (Source: Supplied)
16-year-old Ben Lawrence from Kaiapoi High School, Christchurch, told 1News he "didn't expect anything" after entering his submission, Good Cents.
The app simulates real-world financial scenarios in which users get a job, spend and save money and navigate complex financial curveballs.
ADVERTISEMENT
'You do a quiz on some financial questions like 'What is a good way to spend money?' 'How do you save?' 'What's a budget used for?'.
'And based on that, you'll be awarded points, you'll get promotions and the player can also complete lessons that will teach you certain elements and aspects and then I'll quiz you on it to make sure you've actually read through it."
Throughout the game, Lawrence gave examples of "random events" players could encounter designed to test whether they will spend money or not.
"Oh, the new iPhone came out. You know you already have one, but you want the new one. Do you want to do it, or should you save your money? That kind of thing."
Ben Lawrence's app, 'Good Cents'. (Source: Supplied)
"Or if your savings are low but you have tonnes of money in your spending [the app] might say, 'hey do you want to put some money into your savings, get some interest on it?'."
Lawrence said learning money skills in class could be "pretty boring" and hoped his app could be a way to make learning finances more fun.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Just making learning more fun and then also helping people with skills better pretty darn important and going into adulthood."
The app took him three months to develop, and he hoped to launch it on the App Store soon.
'But I'm working on kind of upgrading it, almost making it so it's more of a platform so schools can sign up to it, license it, whatever and you can have classrooms and teachers can assign work to students and certain aspects of it.
'Phones are banned in schools so that's a huge problem, but I'm working on making it so that they can do it through a website now as well.'
An idea that could go 'global'
Denis Vida, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Western University in Ontario Canada, runs a project called the Global Meteor Network (GMN), which has over 1400 meteor cameras globally across 42 countries.
Liang said he was collaborating the organisation with the goal of sharing his app with the global astronomy community.
ADVERTISEMENT
Adjunct Research Professor at the University of Western Ontario. (Source: Supplied)
"Essentially everyone can follow a simple set of instructions and buy very reasonably low-cost hardware and install a meteor camera, then install our open-source software and contribute to the project," Vida said.
He said "you don't really need to know much about space or science" to do so.
"We have a lot of participants in New Zealand who are farmers with no previous context or interest in astronomy, but when they heard about potential meteor fall in their area they got in touch to get a camera installed."
He said Liang reached out to him as one of New Zealand's "strong, well-organised" group of space enthusiasts, and was excited to collaborate with him on a project to solve a common problem.
Vida said the main issue they faced was that people may be told when a meteor event could happen in their area, but won't know where exactly to look or which way to point their phone in the sky.
"Most of the time when people do it, they hold their phone up, they wait for the right time, and it turns out they were looking the completely wrong direction. Or they'll swing the phone and then the only thing they have in the frame is just the fireball with no other reference points.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The problem is if we want to make measurements in that, we can't use it. There needs to be stars, it needs to be static or have some kind of reference points."
He said developing an app to solve this problem sounded like the perfect project for programming pro Liang.
"So the idea was let's build an app or some service that people can install where every time something like that happens within a certain radius of you, you'll get a notification and a set of instructions of how to start calibration and the sorts of images to take."
Vida said now that Liang had created the app, the next step was getting it installed on a lot of phones, to get other meteor agencies on board.
"Once we know that, you know things are going to happen and then people are going to install it, they're going to take pictures with the app and then once we show results that's where the app is going to get more established or where people are going to get more recognised."
He said with some more rigorous testing and development of some features, Liang's app would have the potential to have an "oversized impact" globally.
"Impacts of little asteroids happen all over the world in a random way. So something's on the App Store and anyone can download it, that's literally [going to] go global."
ADVERTISEMENT
"These challenges are a great way to find talent. You have pretty small investment and you set some sort of a goal, and you find talented people who are inspired by it," he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
15 minutes ago
- RNZ News
AI is peeling back the layers of 'low-value' work - NZ may be well-placed to adapt
By Kenny Ching* of AI can easily replicate large swaths of professional output. Photo: 123RF Analysis - As generative artificial intelligence (AI) advances at breakneck speed, it is upending assumptions about which jobs are "safe" from automation. Disruption now extends well beyond manual or routine work into white-collar roles once considered untouchable. Tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Midjourney can produce policy briefs, analytical reports, software code, design assets and marketing copy in seconds. Even in specialised domains, systems such as PolicyPulse can generate structured briefs and thematic syntheses - tasks that once required teams of experts. If AI can so easily replicate large swaths of professional output, how much of the economy rests on work that creates the appearance of value rather than tangible impact? And could New Zealand - anchored in sectors rooted in physical work, human judgement and essential services - be structurally better placed to thrive? A 2023 Goldman Sachs report estimated generative AI could automate work equivalent to 300 million full-time jobs globally. The highest exposure is in administrative, legal and other information-heavy sectors. In 2024, the International Monetary Fund warned that economies reliant on high-skilled services - such as education, law and finance - face both job losses and rising inequality. This echoes author David Graeber's concept of " bullshit jobs " - roles that add little genuine value. Between 2000 and 2018, most net job growth came from low productivity service sectors such as marketing, consulting and corporate administration. These are precisely the kinds of tasks AI can now perform in seconds. Consultancy firm McKinsey estimates 60-70 percent of activities in office support, customer service and professional services can be automated. The OECD has noted routine information processing jobs face the greatest risk. AI is not only replacing roles - it is revealing how insubstantial many of them were. Some argue finance illustrates this reality starkly: intended to allocate capital efficiently, the sector has expanded beyond its productive purpose. Businessman Adair Turner famously called much of it " socially useless ", while research from the Bank for International Settlements found oversized financial sectors can stifle innovation by diverting talent from more productive areas. Now, AI is automating functions such as risk modelling, compliance and equity research, prompting a reassessment of the sector's true economic value. New Zealand - often caricatured as a remote, agrarian outpost - may be structurally insulated from the worst of the AI shock. Photo: Adam Simpson New Zealand - often caricatured as a remote, agrarian outpost - may be structurally insulated from the worst of the AI shock. Roughly 70 percent of its exports come from agriculture, horticulture, seafood and forestry. Domestically, leading employment sectors include aged care, physiotherapy, plumbing, childcare and early childhood education. These roles require physical dexterity, sensory judgement and human empathy - skills AI cannot yet credibly replicate. In an era when many advanced economies are over-invested in finance, bureaucracy and "bullshit jobs", New Zealand's focus on tangible, value-producing work could be a strategic strength. Innovation in these sectors is happening too . Robotic milking systems have improved dairy efficiency and animal welfare, biosecurity monitoring safeguards exports, and forestry research is targeting carbon neutral timber. If finance reveals how AI strips away illusions, higher education shows its disruptive power. Generative AI can now produce essays credible enough to pass as human work. The humanities tend to reward theoretical fluency and stylistic polish - areas where AI excels. By contrast, science, technology, engineering and mathematics - the so-called STEM subjects - demand precision, formal logic and testable hypotheses, which are harder for AI to mimic. [ has shown STEM-related occupations face the lowest automation risk. New Zealand's recent investment in STEM education is timely. But it must be matched by support for primary and secondary teachers - roles grounded in mentorship and adaptive instruction, which remain beyond AI's reach. Service-heavy economies such as Singapore, Britain and parts of the United States face growing pressure to adapt . Researchers warn that reliance on low-productivity, routine service work risks long-term stagnation unless economies pivot to innovation-led sectors. New Zealand's base in agriculture, manufacturing, trades and essential services offers comparative resilience - but only if reinforced by investment in measurable innovation and productivity. New Zealand's advantage lies not in chasing abstract, easily automated work, but in deepening its strengths in sectors AI cannot yet touch - food production, care and infrastructure. These are industries where value is measured in what is grown, built, repaired and cared for - not in presentation slides. As AI redraws the contours of global labour markets, every country must ask: if a job can be done by an algorithm, was it ever as significant as we believed? For New Zealand, the answer may be to double down on the work that cannot be coded - turning what once looked like a structural constraint into a defining strength. * Kenny Ching is a Senior Lecturer, Business School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. - This story originally appeared on The Conversation .

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Tech giants Apple and Google lose landmark court case as federal judge rules they engaged in anti-competitive conduct
By Michael Atkin and Melanie Vujkovic Fortnite was kicked off the Google and App stores in 2020 for offering its own in-app payment system. Photo: ABC News: Evan Young/Epic Games In a landmark decision, the federal court has on Tuesday ruled against tech giants Apple and Google in a major win for consumers, finding that the companies engaged in anti-competitive conduct. Judge Jonathan Beach found that both companies had broken the law by misusing their market power in the way they run their app stores which sell everything from smartphone apps to computer games. It clears the way for two class actions covering millions of Australian consumers and developers to pursue substantial compensation for the price and commissions they paid for digital content - which according to legal representatives for the class actions were heavily inflated on the app stores. Justice Beach also ruled on two cases brought by Epic Games, the developer of blockbuster online game Fortnite. Justice Beach also ruled on two cases brought by Epic Games, the developer of blockbuster online game Fortnite. Photo: Epic Games He found Google and Apple breached section 46 of the competition and consumer act by misusing their market power to reduce competition but he rejected other allegations including that the companies had engaged in unconscionable conduct - behaviour so harsh it goes against good conscience. Consumer advocates and class action lawyers believe the judgement could have a significant impact on how digital platforms operate in Australia and may result in lower prices, increased competition and more innovation. The exact amount of compensation that 15 million consumers and 150,000 app developers could be entitled to will be determined at another hearing. A key factor in that calculation will be how much less people would have paid Apple and Google if those anti-competitive practices weren't in place. Joel Phibbs, with Phi Finney and McDonald, is representing developers and users in an open class action against Apple and Google Photo: ABC News: Patrick Stone The class actions by law firms Phi Finney McDonald and Maurice Blackburn was brought on behalf of app developers who sold their apps and other content, as well as users who bought them on the Apple and Google stores between November 2017 until June 2022. Joel Phibbs, Principal at Phi Finney McDonald told the ABC the amount of compensation could be substantial, "likely to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars." Both Epic Games and the class action lawyers alleged Apple and Google ran illegal monopolies for app sales, by banning or heavily discouraging other stores or websites. This meant app developers were forced to use the tech giants' payment platforms where both companies collected between 15 and 30 per cent of sales revenue in fees. The battle began in 2020, when Fortnite was kicked off the Google and Apple app stores for offering its own in-app payment system, bypassing the tech giants and their commission. Apple's App Store is the exclusive platform where its native apps are distributed, and under its terms and conditions for developers, it won't allow any third party app store be distributed on its devices - iPhones and iPads - in Australia. Fortnite launched a #FreeFortnite campaign after Apple blocked the app. Photo: Epic Games It also makes it "technically impossible" to directly download apps onto iOS devices outside of its App Store. Justice Beach said the way Apple ran its App Store and its requirement that developer's use its payment platform had negatively impacted competition. He said Apple had "engaged in conduct… that had the purpose or is likely to have or had the effect of substantially lessening competition in such markets". "Specifically, conduct that prevents or prohibits the direct downloading or sideloading of native apps and conduct that prevents or prohibits developers and users from using alternative payment methods." While Apple argued it imposed those restrictions for security concerns and risks, Justice Beach ruled it remained anti-competitive. "The fact that Apple has imposed those centralised app distribution system for the purpose of protecting security, does not entail that there is not also a substantial anti-competitive purpose involved." In a statement, Apple said, "we welcome the Australian court's rejection of some of Epic's claims, however, we strongly disagree with the court's ruling on others." "Apple faces fierce competition in every market where we operate. We continuously invest and innovate to make the App Store the safest place for users to get apps and a great business opportunity for developers in Australia and around the world," it said. Apple maintained that it faces stiff competition from Google, Samsung and other stores and the commissions it charges developers have been decreasing and that many pay none at all. In contrast to Apple products, Android users can use more than one app store and directly download apps from websites. However, Epic Games successfully argued in the case that Google still imposed its own payment system for the Google Play store and its control of the android ecosystem and use of restrictive contracts and conditions heavily impacted competition and therefore prices. Justice Beach found Google had engaged in conduct, "that's had or is likely to have had the effect of substantially lessening competition in such markets." Google told the ABC in a statement: "We disagree with the court's characterisation of our billing policies and practices, as well as its findings regarding some of our historical partnerships, which were all shaped in a fiercely competitive mobile landscape." Despite that, Google said it was pleased Justice Beach had recognised that it offered some additional competition for app distribution beyond its Google Play store. "We welcome the court's rejection of Epic's demands that we distribute app stores from within the Google Play store, and Epic's attacks on other critical security protections that users rely on." Epic Games has been suing both companies in courts around the world, including in Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a jury verdict and a permanent injunction against Google. The US court found that Google had violated federal and Californian antitrust laws by maintaining monopoly power in Android app distribution and billing services and unlawfully tying the use of the Play Store to its billing system. An earlier case, brought by Epic against Apple in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, resulted in Apple being ordered to allow developers to direct consumers to payment providers outside of the App Store. A spokesperson for Australia's consumer watchdog the ACCC said it continued to argue for reform to combat anti-competitive practices by tech giants. It recently completed a five year inquiry into digital platforms. "The ACCC has observed conduct by the most powerful digital platforms that is distorting the competitive process," the spokesperson said. "This conduct includes denying interoperability, self-preferencing and tying, exclusivity agreements, impeding switching, and withholding access to important hardware, software, and data inputs. "We believe a digital platform regulatory regime will promote innovation, investment and productivity." - ABC


Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
‘De-extinction' criticism sparks smear campaign
University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence holds a moa bone extracted from a site in Central Otago. PHOTO: STEPHEN JAQUIERY An Otago paleogenetics researcher who has been critical of Colossal Biosciences' plan to "de-extinct" the giant moa has been targeted by online "smear" articles aimed at discrediting him. University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence has publicly said there was no such thing as de-extinction, and the American company's plan was "a pipe dream that will likely never take flight". "Once something is extinct, it is gone." He said Colossal would be creating a genetically engineered emu or some other genetically engineered ratite that may look like a moa, but was unlikely to function or sound like a moa. Colossal also claimed to have iwi engagement in the project, but Prof Rawlence said based on his experience working with Ngāi Tahu, there was no appetite for de-extinction among many of the individual rūnanga. Now, supporters of Colossal have launched a "smear campaign" on him and other top scientists around the globe who have publicly criticised the de-extinction project. He said there had been three AI-generated articles published in media around the world attacking his professional credibility. One called him a "hypocrite" because he also uses fragmentary ancient DNA to reconstruct lost ecosystems — the same technique Colossal will use to bring back the giant moa. The article said he could not criticise Colossal without criticising his own work. "That's complete rubbish because we're very conscious of the limitations of the data that we use, and we don't over-extrapolate and over-extend our conclusions. "Colossal are selling that they're de-extincting things when they're not. I'm not selling my work as de-extinction." The second "hit piece" accused Prof Rawlence of being more concerned about being a media fixture than actually doing research. "It said I should go focus on improving my mediocre publication record. "My publication record — well that speaks for itself." The third one that came out earlier this week said he was "misappropriating and misrepresenting the Maori voice" around the extinction. "All the engagement work I have done around sequencing moa genomes or looking at New Zealand's taonga species with iwi, hapu, runanga and trusts around the country, means we know the feelings of mana whenua and they are against de-extinction." Colossal chief executive Ben Lamm has told media the company had no involvement in the AI-generated articles. However, Prof Rawlence said it was clear the company did not like the critical commentary. He published a comment piece on The Conversation website about de-extinction, topped with a "tongue-in-cheek headline" saying: "First the dire wolf, now NZ's giant moa: why real 'de-extinction' is unlikely to fly". On July 12, Mr Lamm posted on X about the article, saying: "There are sometimes crazy, weird conspiracy articles about @colossal which make us laugh — But the dumbest headline of all time goes to this article whose author doesn't even know moas couldn't fly. "If the moas [sic] fly, we really up. LOL. I wish people did more research. DUMB — LOLOLOLOLOL." Prof Rawlence said there was also a YouTube video from Colossal about de-extinction science that called its detractors "armchair critics". "Colossal may not be behind the AI-generated smear campaign, but they definitely are wanting to smear and take down critical commentary." Prof Rawlence said he was not concerned about the campaign to discredit his work. "It's water off a moa's back for me. "Under the Education Act, universities have a critic and conscience role enshrined in the legislation, so we can speak out within our area of expertise — which is exactly what we have done. "We provided critical scientific commentary that we did not support de-extinction and that there were serious scientific, ethical, ecological and indigenous engagement concerns. "If the supporters of Colossal had any substantial critique to counter our scientific commentary, they would have used it. "Instead, they're resorting to this — low blows and personal attacks. So to me, it just means our messages are actually hitting home." He believed Colossal's actions were very "Trump-ish". "If a CEO or a director of a museum or the boss of a university put this tweet out, he would be called up in front of his board, reprimanded, or even worse. "But this is Trump's America, and everything is upside down. "So I wouldn't call it very inspiring behaviour at all."