Lots of unfair developers (Garmin, where are you?)

It's probably more common for WFs that use any info from the internet, where the background is there to send and receive info on an ongoing basis.  I really wonder why kpay never made use of the "trial apps" that's already part of CIQ.

“I really wonder why kpay never made use of the "trial apps" that's already part of CIQ.”

I don’t know, but in their shoes I could think of two very, very good reasons:

1. The documentation is lamentable and the received wisdom to any and all forum threads I’ve seen on it has been “ignore it and build your own - It’s not for you”

2. They already had a fully built system that worked with minimal changes (zero changes to the API) where the trial codes would have required extensive reengineering 

it´s very disappointing because there´s a ton of complex apps with tons of work hidden on store just because of this, at least garmin should promote best apps weekly as a it was done months ago.

Not really hidden, but those that are somewhere in the list for categories and not the first 8.  In many cases, those are long established apps.  There are THOUSANDS of watch faces for example so it's hard to be visible on any list of watch faces.

I have 4-6 complex apps that show on the main page of the app web store right now and there are a bunch of factors involved.  And I've in "trending" once in the last year or so that I've seen.

And none of my WFs ever show up anywhere

it´s ironic that Garmin is launching 4.0 to make more complex apps but the most successful ones are the template made apps. categories and sub-categories do not even work, the forums has plenty of unanswered questions and dead links it´s like a nightmare been an iq developer.

I doubt most are "template made apps".  None of mine are, and I can tell you that many of the long term apps in general were not does as templates.

Where are you seeing dead links?  Do you have an example?  The forum SW changed back in 2019, and some folks didn't update their links at the time, but that's really up to the developer, not garmin.

by "successful for template made apps" i mean those who are getting money on for unlocking the devices these are images for garmin forums

You are confusing "template made apps" with "a wide community of developers using the same payment service".

The screenshots above represent a problem in communication rather than a problem in anything else. From the developer perspective users do not read (even when the details of payment are in the first line, which mine all are). From the user perspective developers didn't make it clear that payment was needed or how that would manifest.  

It would be nice to be able to do more to help users through the process, but there is very, very limited formatting available and the ongoing issue of non-functioning links in app descriptions in Garmin ConnectIQ apps, for example.

However...

How one particular payment platform communicates the user journey is a total side-issue to the thread topic which is spammers.

People using a specified payment platform are not synonymous with spammers.

But spammers are a problem.

What i think is the main problem is NOT the template made apps or any app, the main problem is ALGORITHMS in store that have mediocre apps in top positions.

"mediocre apps" is in the eye of the beholder.  Most of the apps I see have been around for some time, with 10's if not 100's of thousand downloads and good (real) reviews.