Weird Garmin saying

Complete nonsense,  Was this from a Garvin "support" person?  Over the years, I've seen them blaming CIQ for about everything!

See here : https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/healthandwellness/f/venu-2/293953/venu-2-2s-battery-drain-after-sw-9-17

From Garmin-Kevin

And just get ''insulted'' by mail because I did not want to do this update... 

Sounds pretty on-brand for Garmin - if there's a problem, blame the customer or blame the dev.

To be fair, Garmin is really good about replacing defective hardware, at least in my experience. (Like broken footpod or HR strap.)

I used to think only Garmin in China mainland tends to blame all problems on the devs. So does CIQ team.

Chinese users will report a lot problems, like ciq cannot save and so on.

Most time, if un-solvable, the email [email protected] tells the customer to contact the dev.

It seems haha the devs are the culprits for all unknown issues.

So I won't make any free apps to avoid endless customer service substituding for garmin and  the users who aren't willing to pay

I'm going to address this with our support team, because the advice on that thread is not very accurate. CIQ watch faces can cause more battery drain than a "native" watch face, particularly if they are poorly written, but I don't think it makes sense to blanket remove any and all CIQ apps as suggested, and I honestly don't believe this is as common an issue as product support makes it sound.

That said, I do think it makes sense to switch to a native watch face for a period of time to see whether the customer's preferred CIQ watch face is the source of the problem. That would be a reasonable troubleshooting step. But just removing everything and assuming it's a problem because an app needs updating could easily be a red herring.

Just yesterday I got a "contact developer" message from a user.  They'd updated their firmware and started getting full device crashes.

I've not seen a case where a CIQ WF could cause this in many years, and told the user that I thought support was just blowing smoke.

Heard back from the user and they said that's what they thought and even tried to convince the support person they were wrong, as they'd been using this watch face for over a year and the crash just started happening when they updated their firmware.  The watch face in question doesn't have a backgroud service, and while it does use onPartialUpdate, the code hasn't really changed in some time, and the only thing was I added new targets (the 255 and 955 for instance) where not a single line of code changed.  Even the fonts for those devices was there from other devices. 

This was a case where just switching to a native WF, or having support ask for the err_log for the device crash would have made sense. But neither happened.

hi, I do agree that a poor code can makes the wf drain a lot of battery but the "issue" is:

the mail I received said that before the fw update my wf worked well with no battery draining but after the update, my wf drains a lot of battery and Garmin answer to him that I have to update my wf to fit the new fw update.