Can you open a new topic on this, I am not following what connectivity issue you are having.
Ron
Hi Matteo Dini
Can you share more information about this with us? I will contact you soon.
Thank you
we connected the watch to Android Studio via wireless debugging as a testing device. We were hoping to see how much memory it uses via profiling the device. We had a problem finding the watch faceās main activity name. In the and we could not see. I hope we will have a tool to monitor memory budget information.
Today one of my updates was accepted by Google Play. I removed some animations, optimized PNG files, and removed all complications from AOD mode. The file was 9,4 mb.
I think āmemory budgetā does not mean āfile sizeā. If we can monitor real-time memory budget we can solve this issue.
2 Likes
No one can from within the the immediate forum. You have to go to Forum Home and then designate the forum to create a new one. I am looking into it but it was a holiday weekend so I didnāt look too hard yet.
Ron
Samsung Developer Relations
Thanks Ron I created a new topic and deleted my post here.
Is there still no solution to the memory budget excess problem?
No ā¦ today an update with the memory budget problem was rejected.
I think there is a positive trend in this direction. I was approved for many watch faces that were not approved due to memory budget. I used watch face studio 1.5.7. A few days later I updated some watch faces and again received warnings for previously approved watch faces. Then I simply sent the same watchfaces again with a warning for review. I did not change anything in them and did not re-upload the files. And lo and behold! They were approved. I think everything is better with this problem, just do the easiest AOD mode without complications.
Personally I cannot worsen the AOD mode or remove data on watch faces released some time ago and already downloaded several times. Users would get angry and leave bad reviews (and they would be right).
5 Likes
My project is 8mb with background images also
Exactly, this is by far the biggest problem of all. Google is forcing us to take something away from a product that has already been sold.
You build a Porsche. You sell it and after a few months you go to the customer and take the tires off. When he asks why, you simply say that the engine was overused.
Its wild!
3 Likes
Lol.
Funniest comment i have read here
Hello everybody. So, here is why my watch face has been rejected:
Issue found: Watch face exceeds memory usage
Your watch face exceeds the [memory budget]
Issue details
We found an issue in the following area(s):
- Version code 10000005
About the Wear App Quality Guidelines
We do not accept apps into Wear OS that donāt adhere to [Wear App Quality]
Watch Face Studio assigns the version number automatically based on the input that you provide.
Here is the documentation:
https://developer.samsung.com/watch-face-studio/user-guide/build.html
It says:
Version code: Internal version number that must be incremented when the watch face is updated. It is not displayed to users. The value allowed must be an integer between 1 and 999,999. This value is used to generate the actual version code combined with the internal version code. For example, entering 77 generates the version code 10,000,077 .
So, in this case, when I provide -for instance- ā4ā as the version number, WFS automatically changes it to ā10,000,004ā and Google Play rejects my app, indicating that somehow the version number exceeds the memory limit. I am not totally sure as to how a version number can exceed the memory limit.
The rejection seems random as some of my other watch faces, having the similar version numbering have been accepted.
Anybody knows what to do?
There was a change in the version code starting with WFS 1.4.13
See this topic
but that is basically the same as you quoted. No one seems to be getting this issue.
The issue Iāve seen posted here before was with the companion app apparently the version code for it was lower than the version code for the Watch or something along that line.
If this is your initial release and not an update perhaps you need to start at version 1. 
I hope this helps if not start a new thread with the same information so this is not lost in the maize of responses. Note: there is a bug and you need to start a new thread in the Forum Home and then use the pencil to select the WFS Category
Also open a support request and ask that I be ccād.
Ron
Samsung Developer Relations
Hi Ron,
Unfortunately, this is not an initial release but an update.
As I said, my other watch faces have been accepted but this one keeps getting rejected, the issue is always the version number. What is weird is current active release has 10,000,004 as the version number. So, they have already approved an earlier version.
I sent an appeal to the rejection and normally they would come up with an answer justifying the rejection but this time, they sent an email declaring that they will look into the issue in more detail. So, to help them I explained the whole issue all over again.
Hopefully, this will turn out positively.
I am assuming you put the commas in there for readability and not in the actual number. 
Try using 10 for the version number and see if that makes a difference.
In the build settings you can see what the version number is upper right above the version number.
Did you change the Version Name from 1.0.0 to 1.0.1 for example Maybe they sent the wrong report and that is what the error is.
Good Luck and let us know if you get a solution
Ron
Samsung Developer Relations
I hope you get a better result
I think that in your case, it doesnāt depend on the version of the app code but on the annoying memory budget problem.
Google reviewers simply refer to the version number.
Until Google revises its memory budget policy in AOD mode, most developers will not be able to update watch faces with the latest WFS.
They canāt reject an app just because of a version codeā¦
There are much more serious issues that they havenāt yet understood.
This will be the way many designers/developers abandon Wear OS/WFS towards 3rd party appsā¦
Thatās the point, (and this is my thought).
2 Likes
You are right. What I did was disabling the complications and an animation which seemed to be active in ambient mode and voila, it got accepted. I donāt know why I made such a rookie mistake though. Animations and complications freeze in ambient mode anyway, so there is no reason to keep them alive in that case.
Thanks a bunch for the answers both to Ron and Matteo_Dini, I enjoy your watchfaces by the way, keep up the good work!
Dear All,
Glad to inform you, today i have created new watch face based on version 1.5.7 and it is approved by google just within 1 hour and live now.
Happy to see that no memory budget issue for this watch face though the file size 4.381 MB
Those who failed try again, never give up. Enjoy.
@r.liechty_SDR Hi Ron, i can not create new topic to post, can you please advise. Thanks.