Firmware checks

Since releasing my watchface last week I have had two 1* reviews stating that it causes their vivoactive to shutdown/reboot. I own and test with a vivoactive so know that the watchface works well and can only assume that they are attempting to run it on watches with outdated firmware. Since they have not posted on the thread associated with my app I have no method to follow up on this.

Since end users may skip over the full descriptions, I propose that the manifest allows a developer to specify which SDK the app was built with, or to indicate the minimum version of firmware for each watch that it is compatible with. For example:

<iq:product id="vivoactive" firmware="2.70" />

The connect app on the phone could query the watch for firmware and gps version when it syncs. Then when browsing the store via the connect app it can check the minimum firmware permitted for a given app and indicate to the user that their firmware must be updated to use that particular app, preventing them from installing it until they have.

jim_m_58 over 10 years ago

The Garmin folks have talked about doing something like the ability to check firmware version of the target when downloading from the store.

What vivofit firmware where the people running that got a crash? If it was pre 2.60, one suspect is using "phoneConnect" to check bluetooth status. I my watchfaces, in initialize() I have

availableStatBT=(Sys.getDeviceSettings() has :phoneConnected ) ? true : false;

and then use

if(availableStatBT && settings.phoneConnected)

    {

        ...

    }

when checking it (if availableStatBT is false, it never checks the second part of the condition, and therefore doesn't crash on pre 2.60)

teadriven over 10 years ago

What vivofit firmware where the people running that got a crash?

That's the problem, since they didn't post on the forum I have no idea.

Thank you for the suggestion of checking feature availability directly, I will give that a try.

jim_m_58 over 10 years ago

As the va has only had 2.30, 2.40, 2.50, 2.60, and 2.70 since it his the streets, I'm betting it's pre 2.60, as that's when using phoneConnected started working without a crash.

If you use phoneConnected, it will crash any va running FW before 2.60. The "has" protects against that, but is kind of "expensive", and that's why I only do it once and then set a Boolean.

Also, for 2.60 and 2.70, you didn't get the updates over BT, but only through GE and a PC, so I'm betting a few folks have missed it.

teadriven over 10 years ago

So, I updated the software the other day to include the check for BT feature availability. Today I received yet another 1* review that simply says "Will cause vivoactive shutdown".

How am I supposed to fix a problem when I have no idea what firmware the end users are running and they do not post on the thread with more information (having most likely skipped reading the description on the store page)?
Even if I did know the version of firmware they are running, is there any way I can test an app in the simulator as though it is running that specific firmware to see what is happening?

Nikeow over 10 years ago

I'm starting to sense the same level of frustration based on the less than favorable review I'm getting as well for the VA (is it me or most support / low rating reviews or issues come from users of the VA?)

If it's not just be stratxhing my own itch and willingness to help - I'll just ignore or even remove support for it(VA)

Garmin needs to step in and provide some mediation on this lest developers run away from supporting the VA.

btw - is there even analytics as to how many downloads are from which users? (Of devices)

jim_m_58 over 10 years ago

The va IS different than the f3 or 920 (as the epix will be!) and developers need to be careful about checking what devices they support when adding to the app store. ONLY if YOU or a tester has TRIED it on a real device should that device be supported! Otherwise, negative reviews and a bad name for CIQ stuff in general!

The app store really needs to support a "beta" option on stuff, as most developers don't have multiple devices!

Nikeow over 10 years ago

Hmm.. So the onus is on the developer. ��

So, I think I'll just remove support for the VA in general. Seems like these watch has the most issues (impression wise)

Former Member over 10 years ago

The va IS different than the f3 or 920 (as the epix will be!) and developers need to be careful about checking what devices they support when adding to the app store. ONLY if YOU or a tester has TRIED it on a real device should that device be supported! Otherwise, negative reviews and a bad name for CIQ stuff in general!

Sound financial advice. Not only do they save money by not fixing the simulator, they sell more units. On the other hand, by your own maxim, should Garmin release the CIQ simulator when it doesn't accurately simulate the devices? They should remove the offending devices from the simulator supported devices list.

Nikeow over 10 years ago

Sound financial advice. Not only do they save money by not fixing the simulator, they sell more units. On the other hand, by your own maxim, should Garmin release the CIQ simulator when it doesn't accurately simulate the devices? They should remove the offending devices from the simulator supported devices list.

Touché. Good one.

The other side of it would be that VA users (or maybe garmin) donate to the app developer to enable them to get the actual device for testing then that's a totally different story.

Right now, all of us developers are basically creating these apps to scratch our own individual itches, doubt anyone gets any donation that relieves some of the time taken to support those devices.

I don't see monetization happening.

Former Member over 10 years ago

Would be nice, but practically impossible to implement. How can a user know if they want to support a product if they can't see it working? What's to stop someone posting a copied app/face/etc just to get a discount?

In the between I have come up with a new name. The Garmin CIQ similarator.