Hello All, I am currently having an issue with a face that I had to update simply because Google wanted me to update the Health Policy and I made ZERO changes to the app itself. The face in question has been in “production” since mid-April with no issues to speak of. Google came back to me yesterday and rejected the app citing that the “app crashed when it’s launched”. I have had a couple of these before and it is EXTREMELY frustrating because Google offers no other information about said issue.
As developers, where do you go from here? Do you just bang your head against the wall and blindly “fix” something an app that on my end, and whoever else has downloaded and installed my face, is working totally fine. After an appeal, they told me they are unable to provide me with anymore information and that I should refer to the Google Play Guidelines. I am not an expert for sure, but I have released my fair share of faces and it’s kind of insulting to be honest to get this kind of response. I am really at a loss as to what to do and I am starting to feel that Google looks at us as more of a problem or a nuisance than anything.
I guess my question is if anyone else here has had the super ambiguous/vague rejections before and what you have done about it to de-bug in an environment where you don’t even get to see what that problem is or what it even looks like?
Hello,
I understand your frustration. Dealing with vague rejections from app stores can be incredibly challenging. Here are some steps you can take to debug and resolve the issue: Review Google Play Guidelines: Make sure your app complies with all the latest Google Play guidelines, especially the Health Policy. Sometimes, even minor changes in policies can affect app approval.
Check for Common Issues: App Crashes: Ensure that your app does not crash on launch. Test it on multiple devices and Android versions to identify any potential issues. Performance Issues: Make sure your app runs smoothly without any performance bottlenecks. Use Crash Reporting Tools:
Implement crash reporting tools like Crashlytics or Sentry to gather detailed crash reports. Remote Debugging: Use remote debugging tools to inspect your app’s state and monitor network traffic. Logcat and ADB: Use Logcat to capture crash logs. Testing and QA: Conduct rigorous testing, including unit tests, integration tests, and user acceptance testing. Memory Profiling:
Use memory profiling tools to identify memory leaks and optimize memory usage. Seek Community Help: Reach out to developer communities and forums like Stack Overflow. By following these steps, you can systematically identify and resolve the issues causing your app to crash. Remember, persistence is key, and leveraging the right tools and community support can make a significant difference.
[link removed]
I appreciate that but my issue is that the face was passed back in April??? and has been in “production” with no issues since then. The ONLY reason Google had to review it again was to update the health app policy of which I just clicked the “health and fitness” box. I made absolutley NO Changes to the AAB nor did I even upload an updated version. How can a face be passed and be working just fine on multiple Wear OS devices for 2 months and then when review by Google, they say it crashes on launch and they reject it after they have passed the very same version 2 months previously.
Also I am by no means a Google Developer. I am a graphic artist who uses WFS, Facer, Watchmaker to make watch faces. I have grinded and figured out the various app’s coding and Google Play but that’s about it. Unfortunately all these resources you have pointed out require a great bit of learning for me. I suppose I should expect that in this Google Development environment but it’s hard to know everything.
My Heart goes out to You Makers Publishing on Google . All I see is Fantasic work from you for sure . I have seen recently a few Faces What I would call Simple as Hell for sale at .99 cents . In my tiny head I was thinking they Could offer a bit more but now I see Why . I was pretending in my head that I would like to publish stuff but with my Decreasing Faculties I think I will continue as an Audience member .
I sadly technical barriers like that will exclude true Creative Talent . So the kind of Faces that appear on Google will not be the Best . I think that is called shooting Yourself in the Foot .
All the Very best with you Work @MergeLabs .
I mean maybe that’s the secret? I’ll just make 5 minute faces and sell them for .99 cents. It sure would be a lot less headache and they’ll surely pass! I think that’s what Google wants too. Man those Facer guys have it good!
Yes . I saw a guy on face post 4 completely Blank faces. I have done that as a Joke with A Half Decent face revealed on Tilt . Sadly if you leave you platform open it will be abused . Having said that I have Seen Faces there that make me Weep with Joy . I have to say I have not seen many on Google .Sadly Google Have made Browsing Exclusive as well . I am not certain that Facer designed thier Model but there are Many Happy accidents there . Their Fresh Faces though Badly abused is a Fantastic launce for Aspiring Talent . Their browsing Categories make it easy to find types . Rather than having to wade through the Table d’Hote.
We are talking here about watchface, which has no executable code in it, its not an app. If one experiences no crashes during own tests, how can one find anything not learning from google any further details, like at least what device/SW they tested on?
I had the same issue. The watch face had been approved and was on the Play store for a few weeks when I just made a change to one screenshot. The watch face app had no changes whatsoever. After a few days I got the same response: App crashes although no change had been made to the watch face app after it had been approved. I disputed the rejection saying that I had tested the watch face extensively on actual devices and that the watch face app has been left untouched when the screenshot was updated. I uploaded the same wfs app again (untouched from the previously approved version) and it was rejected again - but this time for text being cut off - no more mention of app crashing. I feel clearly something does not add up here…
At the very least, Google could try to make some effort to describe the issue. Is it not opening/loading at all? are there some elements missing? I say this because I have had issues in the past using bitmap fonts to display the time. I have found that if you put those elements in folders in WFS, they sometimes do not show up on the watch face and I fixed the issue not from anything Google did, but from a customers description of the issue and making sure those elements are not in folders anymore. Especially in AOD. Seems like the developers here bend over backwards to conform to each and every change or policy demand that Google comes up with yet it seems like they can’t be bothered to help us out with a more explicit description or a screenshot? It’s really discouraging to say the least.
I recall this kind of attitude not too far back when so many people including myself were losing their minds over the “watch face exceeds memory usage” because we got nothing but crickets about what the issue was or how to solve it.
Those vague rejections can be very frustrating, I believe most of us have been there, unfortunately.
In cases like you’ve described, where you KNOW everything works well and the watch face has been out for months without any issues, and nothing was changed (apart from the form which has nothing to do with the app itself), I usually just resend the app for review from the Publishing overview, no changes.
In 99% of the cases the app gets approved the second time.
This is just my theory, but I assume that the first reviewer made a mistake of some sort, or was just using an older watch device for testing which had its own issues, after which they blamed the watch face and moved on.
Keep in mind that people who review these most likely go through tens or even hundreds of watch faces every day. They probably have a list of things they need to go through when testing, and if any issues occur while testing (which we all know can happen at any time), they just mark it as failed and move on.
Keeping that in mind, it’s still frustrating when unjustified rejections happen, but it’s somewhat understandable at least.
TLDR: If you’re 100% sure nothing’s wrong with the watch face, just re-submit it and hope that the next reviewer is better than the last one.
For sure! I was just about to post an update about it.
I really am starting to think that there is an issue with WFS and keeping elements of your watch face in group folders. I have experienced a couple of instances where things just don’t show up, especially in AOD.
With this latest face I mentioned, it’s still undetermined what the issue was if there was any at all and Google was no help at all but I decided to just ungroup everything and publish a new version. Wouldn’t you know it? It passed.
But yeah regarding the reviewers, I am sorry but it’s no excuse as you say to be using an older watch and blame the watch face and move on. I sincerely hope that isn’t the case and these reviewers are using up to date devices and are giving the faces proper scrutiny. I still also don’t understand why they can’t be a little more specific about the issue or even send a screen shot. As developers, I am sure we’d be happy to wait a little longer to get our faces passed at the cost of being a little more attentive while reviewing faces. That’s their job.
Very Interesting @MergeLabs about the Ungrouping . It is a great bonus to be able to group stuff . Was there a Mask in there as well . That is a kind of grouping . I can well imaging Grouping a Groups would create a problem .
I had a couple of masks but I didn’t ungroup them. I like to be organized and I like to use groups so it’s hard to look at when I ungroup everything. It’s too bad I have no way to test if this grouping issue only happens when using bitmap fonts as I suspect because I have no information on what problem the Google reviewer experienced when loading my watch face. As I said before, maybe a simple screen shot Google?
If the testing is done by a Bot the Testing condition is in the Code for the Simulator and pushing button B would give a Detailed Report . If it is all done Manually I would say the Testers are not doing thier Job properly . I presume they get Paid ?
Given my experiences getting my game released, I think their first test pass is an automated pass ran on an emulator. My issue only showed on an emulator, but I was testing on an actual device.
Make sure it runs on an emulator as well as devices.
Maybe stupid question but should guys like me using WFS (Watch Face Studio) to make watch faces and people who develop game and have infinitely more knowledge than me in terms of Android Studio, coding, testing, etc., etc. be put in the same category as far as getting an app passed?
I am simply working within the confines of WFS and only bringing my own graphics into WFS. It’s pretty straightforward and GUI as far as any coding goes. I am only publishing for WearOS and not using companion apps at the moment.
I follow the quality guidelines, adhere to any policies, make my graphics as efficient and tiny as possible, and use the tools within WFS to “code” my faces. I really don’t understand why I gotta run emulators, and run Android Studio etc, etc. I would love to learn of course but that takes time.
I was batting a 1000 for a good while and having my apps (watchfaces) put into production in as little as 6 hours. The only thing I have done recently was finally upgrade to WFS 1.6.9 and since then my last 2 faces have been a nightmare to pass and they get the same generic, vague, and completely unhelpful “your app does not install or launch without crashing”. Yet, on my device and my tester’s devices, the watch face works flawlessly.
Now I am reduced to trying to debug the issue by basically creating another watch face and introducing each element/feature of the watch face one by one to see if it gets passed which is not ideal since it’s taken a week and a half waiting in review to just get 3 of the “elements” passed so I can figure out what the issue may be or if it even has anything to do with that at all.
I can only assume WFS was upgraded to deal with changes at the Google/Android end. They may have tightened up their requirements.
My issue turned out to be the initial icon wasn’t displayed on a black background, except it was black on the device. The emulator showed up the issue and displayed an warning about what was wrong, it was an easy fix in the end.
So while it can be a bit of a pain to learn something totally new, it’s pretty straightforward to install Android Studio and set up an emulator. I only use Android Studio to run the emulator, I don’t use it for my code, it’s purely to get easy access to the emulator. It is also useful to get access to different sized watch screens to check everything looks right at different resolutions.
I am more than happy to help if you need some assistance getting Android Studio working, assuming your PC is up to it.
awww cheers man! I actually installed Android Studio and followed a tutorial to build a companion app. I have no idea what I am doing but I followed the instructions right up to the end and it seemed to go well. Problem is, I can’t for the life of me get my phone to connect with Android Studio to test it. It reminds me of all the issues I had trying to get WFS to talk to my watch when I first started.
PS. I am using a year old MacBook Pro with the M2 chip
I’ve not got round to doing any companion apps, I’m doing stand-alone games (for now).
If you have AS already installed then you can just run the Device Manager and start up an emulator (for watches or other devices).
I’m using Linux, but I think you should also be able to drag and drop your apk/aab onto the emulator (once it has booted up) and it will install it. I use “adb logcat” at a terminal to get my output log, but AS should connect to an emulator fairly easily and show you a log.