Acknowledged
CIQQA-3746

ConnectIQ won't show the app

Hi, so I've been developing for a while now this app Sleephelper, but I can't see it on the store when I search it up, I have a link to the app, I can share, download and see the main page of the app. But on the search I cannot find it. Maybe it's a slow server updating? Because I updated the app few hours ago. 

Joris
Parents

  • "It seems like Garmin has a slower manual approval when you switch an app from free to paid, though as your example probably shows it's based on a strange assumption,  that an app only can have payments when the developer clicks that checkbox."

    Why is that a strange assumption? As we all know very well, some time ago, Garmin started "enforcing" the rule that devs must to check the "payment required" checkbox if their app asks for payments or donations. I think this happened around the same time (or slightly before) built-in monetization was added to the CIQ store.

    Previous to that announcement, Garmin sort of let it slide if you didn't check the box but your app asked for donations (for example). But with that announcement, they made it clear that devs are required to check the box if their app asks for any kind of payments.

    Sure, devs can always choose to lie by unchecking that box even if their app asks for payments, but that goes against Garmin's explicit terms.

    Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it seems that you're implying it's strange for Garmin to assume devs will be honest when answering that question? I mean, it's not so strange to me if the alternative for the dev is that their app could be rejected or removed if Garmin finds they lied. It's like saying it's strange to assume that citizens usually abide by laws by default, unless there's some specific reason to believe otherwise.

    "IMHO this is counter intuitive."

    "I guess in theory they should check all uploads when the checkbox isn't checked, but that would not scale."

    It seems like you addressed your own objection? Yes, Garmin could assume that all devs could be lying when they don't check the "payment required" checkbox and subject all apps to additional scrutiny as if they are all monetized, but they apparently don't have that kind of time.

    So actually, it's not counterintuitive at all.

    1) Garmin subjects monetized apps to greater scrutiny on review

    2) Garmin assumes that devs answer the "payment required" question honestly (if only because devs know that their app could be rejected if they're found to be lying)

    3) Garmin identifies monetized apps using the "payment required" checkbox

    These 3 (apparent) facts taken together don't add up to counterintuitive behaviour at all imo. I would go further and say that if we accept your implicit assumption that all devs could be lying when they fail to check the "payment required" checkbox, then the checkbox itself would be useless and Garmin may as well remove it. Iow, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that any uploaded app could be monetized, regardless of the "payment required" checkbox. In that case, the payment required checkbox literally gives Garmin no useful information (other than that a given dev was honest about a given app being monetized). If Garmin needs to verify monetization in every case, then what good is the "payment required" checkbox?

    Maybe what's actually strange is that there apparently isn't any manual check / additional scrutiny when an app is changed from "payment required" to "payment not required". That seems to be the kind of thing that should be verified.

Comment

  • "It seems like Garmin has a slower manual approval when you switch an app from free to paid, though as your example probably shows it's based on a strange assumption,  that an app only can have payments when the developer clicks that checkbox."

    Why is that a strange assumption? As we all know very well, some time ago, Garmin started "enforcing" the rule that devs must to check the "payment required" checkbox if their app asks for payments or donations. I think this happened around the same time (or slightly before) built-in monetization was added to the CIQ store.

    Previous to that announcement, Garmin sort of let it slide if you didn't check the box but your app asked for donations (for example). But with that announcement, they made it clear that devs are required to check the box if their app asks for any kind of payments.

    Sure, devs can always choose to lie by unchecking that box even if their app asks for payments, but that goes against Garmin's explicit terms.

    Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it seems that you're implying it's strange for Garmin to assume devs will be honest when answering that question? I mean, it's not so strange to me if the alternative for the dev is that their app could be rejected or removed if Garmin finds they lied. It's like saying it's strange to assume that citizens usually abide by laws by default, unless there's some specific reason to believe otherwise.

    "IMHO this is counter intuitive."

    "I guess in theory they should check all uploads when the checkbox isn't checked, but that would not scale."

    It seems like you addressed your own objection? Yes, Garmin could assume that all devs could be lying when they don't check the "payment required" checkbox and subject all apps to additional scrutiny as if they are all monetized, but they apparently don't have that kind of time.

    So actually, it's not counterintuitive at all.

    1) Garmin subjects monetized apps to greater scrutiny on review

    2) Garmin assumes that devs answer the "payment required" question honestly (if only because devs know that their app could be rejected if they're found to be lying)

    3) Garmin identifies monetized apps using the "payment required" checkbox

    These 3 (apparent) facts taken together don't add up to counterintuitive behaviour at all imo. I would go further and say that if we accept your implicit assumption that all devs could be lying when they fail to check the "payment required" checkbox, then the checkbox itself would be useless and Garmin may as well remove it. Iow, if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that any uploaded app could be monetized, regardless of the "payment required" checkbox. In that case, the payment required checkbox literally gives Garmin no useful information (other than that a given dev was honest about a given app being monetized). If Garmin needs to verify monetization in every case, then what good is the "payment required" checkbox?

    Maybe what's actually strange is that there apparently isn't any manual check / additional scrutiny when an app is changed from "payment required" to "payment not required". That seems to be the kind of thing that should be verified.

Children
  • in reply to flowstate

    Either you or I completely misunderstood something.

    Joris wrote: "YEAH that was the error because it was made that it has payments in it, I disabled it. Now it works"

    I thought this means that when they uploaded the update they checked the payment checkbox, and now they unchecked it and that "fixed" the app being missing from the search.