Facemaker v1.3.121

No, they won't have to send it to me, I'll fix the FM code and they just have to update and export again.

Thank you for your opinion!

Facemaker said:

Facemaker outputs the full source code, along with the PRG.
When the user chooses to monetize on export, only the PRG and snapshots of both the normal and AOD screens are output, for obvious reasons.
When monetization is involved, a trial watchface is created, with extra code that contacts the FM endpoint to validate the trial time and purchase status.

Facemaker said:

No problem, I can enable the source code output too for monetized watchfaces!

Yeah, I mean I don't understand why (originally) you wouldn't output source code for monetized watchfaces but you would for non-monetized watchfaces. The reasons actually aren't obvious to me.

The user of FM in this case is the seller / watchface designer and the person who downloads the app in the store is the buyer / watchface consumer, correct?

Maybe the rationale was that the only reason to output source code would be so that the designer can give the consumer the source. In this case, if the watchface was monetized, then the clearly the designer wouldn't want to give the consumer the source, and therefore there would be no reason for FM to output source at all. But this rationale doesn't make much sense to me. Whatever reasons the consumer might want the source of app would seem to apply doubly to the watchface designer (whether the watchface is monetized or not).

OTOH, if the rationale was that FM wants to prevent the user / designer from working on the app without FM, then it would make sense to withhold the source code in all situations (i.e. monetized or not).

It just seems weird to penalize users for monetizing their watchfaces (by withholding source) when:

- designers already pay for FM whether or not their watchface is monetized

- you will take a cut of sales from monetized watchfaces (in the form of fees)

I'm just curious what the original rationale was.

I wouldn't output the source code because we all know how it is nowadays. Come on guys...
Knowing the endpoint is halfway to hack something. A FM user might be hacked and then we all know what comes next.

I can provide all the FM source code to the Garmin team if they ask me to, FM doesn't have a line of malicious code.
I'm utterly against hacking or any other form of taking adavntage of a user.
I have more than 10000 users and my support is stellar, much better than any major company is able to provide.
I responde promptly and I work 18h a day to comply to it.


Look guys, I can see that somehow I'm getting into some kind of lobby here. I'm sorry for this.
I'm not trying to remake Garmin history, instead, I'm trying to contribute somehow to it.

This is going to happen. If you guys don't want to be a part of it, please don't, but I wish you do.

My intentions are the best, make no mistake. I'm no millionaire or something like that, I'm just a guy that loves custom watchfaces and I'll allow my users to create them, faster, easier and smarter than all other users.

If they make money with it, I'm happier. But I'm no opportunist.

I didn't want to write it directly before, but here it is beautifully shown how special the garmin community of developers is ;)

Thank you for your insight. You're awesome.

I have been warned of this. But I look to it like someone shooting their own foot.
To everyone here:

Keep doing your own thing. I force no one to use FM and the Garmin team will be the judge of the watchfaces FM outputs.
If they're not complying to the rules, I'll fix it.

If some of my user has a problem, I'll fix it.
I'm restless, I don''t give up and FM watchfaces will be accepted sooner or later

.

So, how many actual garmin devices have you tested this on and which ones?  Hopefully both MIP and AMOLED devices.  What you see on a screen as far as colors can look very different on a MIP display.  And them there's the whole thing with how much you can do during low power with a watch face on an AMOLED display.  And the time limits for onPartialUpdate.

Maybe Garmin can require that when someone uploads an app to the store, that dev must have at least one Garmin device registered to their account.  What do you guys think? 

If the dev doesn't have a Garmin, it's kind of clear they have never tried it on a real device

I assume that Garmin trusts enough on their simulator to know any watchface tested on it will be a working one.
I mean, if a team provides a simulator, it must comply, right?

Otherwise, the simulator would be a gimmick. Are you saying the Garmin simulator is just a gimmick?

That's not very assuring... I'm worried now.
The Garmin team has failed us all.