Facemaker v1.3.121

Facemaker said:

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.

Yeah, I’m not accusing you of anything, I was just asking a straightforward question in good faith.

I just didn’t understand the point of not generating source code for monetized watchfaces but generating source for non-monetized watchfaces, considering it’s the FM user who is selling the watchface to someone else.

If the FM user gets hacked, then the hacker can steal an FM license and generate the source code anyway, right? 

My only point was that if it was me, I would understand not generating the source code in both cases (monetized vs. non-monetized) or generating the source code in both cases. In the first scenario, FM (you) maintain control over the source code. In the second case, the designer would maintain control of the source code. I just don’t understand why the designer would lose access to the source code bc they decided to monetize the watchface. Again, FM still gets paid for the license, and FM gets its cut of sales.

And you were the one who said the reasons were obvious. Well to me they’re not obvious (after thinking about it for a little while), but ofc it doesn’t matter what I think.

After all, there’s absolutely nothing preventing a designer from generating a free watchface (with source code) and monetizing it on their own, right? (Unless you have something in the TOS that prevents it, but ofc designers may choose to ignore any such clause.)

This is also not an accusation, I’m just trying to explore all of the angles here without any judgement.

Facemaker said:

Look guys, I can see that somehow I'm getting into some kind of lobby here

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t identify with some monolithic hivemind of Garmin devs or forum users. On the contrary, not that you would care, but a lot of times my opinion actually goes against the grain of whatever the forum consensus is.

You can do whatever you want, I was just curious about your project and the reasoning behind some of the decisions.

Facemaker said:

Thanks to the help from the most knowledgeable users here, Facemaker now supports Garmin!

ntpr said:

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

Tbh it’s a barely a community. You could count the number of regular posters here on one hand.

Facemaker said:

Thank you for your insight. You're awesome.

So you’ll happily accept free help from the community, but when some ppl have opinions you might not like, you’ll agree with the guy “sneakily” throwing shade at us, huh?

Just as you don’t need our approval for anything, we aren’t obligated to be your technical support, early adopters or uncritical cheerleaders.

Facemaker said:

The Garmin team has failed us all.

“Us”? No way you’d want to identify with the “special” community of devs that has opinions you don’t like

As one of the Garmin CIQ folks says, "Remember it's a simulator and NOT an emulator'.  There are many things that are different in the sim than on real devices.  Like the switch between low and high power for watch faces as an example.

That's why having a real device is important.

You're just proving my point.
I've been faced with nothing but hostility from the likes of you.

I did nothing wrong and I've been polite as much as I could.

If you don't like FM, even though you haven't tried it, please stop posting here. You'll be doing me and all the other users a favour.
Because this is what's at stake here. You haven't tried it, but yet you're making assumptions.
Are you a logical person? I'm sorry, but I am one and I don't see a justification for your posts.
Still, keep in mind I'm not figting against you, I'm fighting for Garmin.

What you COULD do is learn the environment.  I notice you've never said what actual devices you've tested this on!

Ahah, I understand that and you're right.
Still, I'd expect the Garmin simulator to have some worth, otherwise, they might as well say "buy all the watches, just to make sure".

In the end, the Garmin team will say if the FM watchfaces are valid or not, so I don't understand what the fuzz is.
If you start seeing FM watchfaces on the store, I'm sorry. But I'll make damn sure of it.

I think the Garmin customers deserve more than they have right now.
The Garmin watchface scene has been owned by developers so far (nothing wrong about that, I'm one myself), but I believe the best watchfaces are made by designers.
They know the right rules, what to do what not to do in terms of design. They know something we don't.

And I believe Garmin will benefit from it.

I have stated on my OP the supported devices are those with AMOLED and the API level 5.0.0.
I thought I made that clear, sorry if I didn't.

Facemaker said:

I've been faced with nothing but hostility from the likes of you.

Like I said, all I ask of you is that you don’t lump me in with some imaginary monolithic Garmin forum or CIQ developer community that has zero diversity of opinion. It’s probably more insulting to everyone else here than it is to me haha.

Sorry if I came across as hostile to you, I just tried to apply some critical thinking about possible objections Garmin might have, and I had some questions of my own.

Would you prefer if everyone just said “wowowowow amazing idea!!!1! where can I sign up???”

Facemaker said:

If you don't like FM

I actually think it’s a cool idea, I just had some questions. Again I think it’s interesting that you welcome tech support and positive feedback but nothing else.

Facemaker said:

Because this is what's at stake here. You haven't tried it, but yet you're making assumptions.

Sorry, exactly *what* is at stake here? I’m not making assumptions, but asking questions and openly speculating. 

Facemaker said:

I'm fighting for Garmin

I wish you nothing but the best, but don’t expect everyone to see your business venture as a noble selfless cause that will benefit everybody. None of us, including Garmin, are exactly saving the world here.

Facemaker said:

Are you a logical person? I'm sorry, but I am one and I don't see a justification for your posts.

You’re the one who won’t answer a straightforward question about source code without deflections or insults. Again I was not asking out of judgment or hostility, I was simply curious. I would have understood the not-generating-source-code thing if the FM user had to directly pay for each watchface (for their own use), for example. The current model (wrt source code) didn’t make sense to me, but maybe I was being stupid or missing something obvious. That’s why I asked.

But you don’t have to answer, I don’t actually care that much.

EDIT: thinking/looking back, you pretty much answered it when you explained that you don’t want the details of the payment endpoint to be revealed. Which makes a certain amount of sense, but again, the source code withholding would make more sense to me if the user of FM was actually the end user of the watchface, which isn’t the case. Either way, it’s up to you. No judgment here.

Speaking of hostility, you start out by thanking the community, but again, when you hear some opinions you don’t like, you start insulting the community.

Again, I think your idea is pretty cool from a technical perspective. I agree that most ppl don’t want to learn how to code in order to design a CIQ watchface (or data field), which is why we’ve seen a few DIY data field apps / generators and watchface builders over the years. Your idea is a bit more ambitious than the previous ones, and I think that’s great.

I just don’t understand why you come here and expect uncritical support. This “special” community will spend a ton of time answering technical questions (to the best of our knowledge and ability), troubleshooting other people’s problems, etc. In most cases we get zero benefit from this. You’re cool with that, but god forbid someone has opinions you don’t like.

I wish you the best of luck!

But have you tested on a real device?

I have no grudge againt you, but you must admit that the amount of posts on this thread has been abnormal to say the least.
That means this thread has had some impact, negative or positive, I don't care.
I hope it's positive, because my intentions are good.
And I don't mind having negative critiques, but as long as they're informed (by informed, I mean actually using the software),, they mean nothing. They're biased.

This is not a business, believe me. I paid the expenses from my own pocket for a long while and almost every month and my users know that, because of my passion.
I have no expectations whatsoever, I just hope I can make something special out of this.


I truly believe in Garmin and I'll keep on believing. And in a week, people will start posting and then we'll know.
Is that good enough for you?