Put more app memory into newer model watches

haha... definitely better to be given an opportunity to do something that may be difficult!  

I have adapted my program to work on the Instinct 2, and am super excited about it, just a tad frustrated, mainly at myself haha, that I wasn't able to make the app with all the capabilities fit into a smaller memory footprint...  hence I was directing my frustration at others instead of no one like I should have.

I'm sorry for the negativity/unprofessionalism I shared earlier.  thanks for the good reply

@mbfxw wrote:
It seems as if you forgot to add enough memory to some of your new watch releases!  

Different devices have different amounts of physical memory available, and the software built into those devices reserves different amounts of memory for ConnectIQ apps. This is just the way things work. Decisions about how much memory will be available to ConnectIQ are outside of the control of software developers like myself.

@mbfxw wrote:
If you're gonna release more watches with this little memory available to apps, please just make them connectIQ incompatible.

As it stands today, if your app can't support a device because of the reduced memory available, then you have options; you can remove functionality and optimize, or you can disable support. You may not like the options, but the decision is for you to make for your app, and for other developers to make for their apps.

If we were to do as you suggest, we would be eliminating options from developers that would have been able to get their apps to work within the limitations. We'd also be taking away functionality for users who tend toward more budget-friendly devices since such devices typically have reduced memory availability.

At the root of your argument, you're suggesting that we shouldn't put ConnectIQ support on devices that have less memory than much older generation. Consider that the original Epix offered 1048576B of memory to watch-app, widget, and watch-face app types and was released in Jan 2015. That is more memory than fenix5/s (Mar 2017), fr935 (Mar 2017), vivoactive3 ( Aug 2017), fr645 (Jan 2018), fr245 (Apr 2019), fenix6/s (Aug 2019), venusq (Sep 2020), venu2 (Apr 2021), fenix7 (Jan 2022), and a handful of other devices. By your proposal, we should either never have supported these devices, or we should have increased the available memory to put them on par or exceed that of the Epix (potentially at an increased cost). As far as I can tell, all of those devices are perfectly valid platforms as they are, and thousands of apps support this conclusion.

The bottom line it all boils down to this.. is it worse to be given the opportunity to do something that may be difficult, or to never be given that opportunity at all?