I would explain it that one reviewer was up to date on the changes that were made the end of August and the other reviewer isn’t.
Ron
Samsung Developer Relations
Here’s the response of an appeal. You can notice that, aside from the icon (which doesn’t contain any logo or shadow, but they’re drunk or something), the memory budget doesn’t mention the AOD or normal mode and it’s 10MB still. The watch face would have been perfectly suitable for the new limit, but that’s it. Time to spam the “submit button” again until it’s accepted, good luck to me.
Google responded.
AOD consumes too much memory. How much, we don’t see. But luckily, other programs approved.
And both programs were submitted on the same day and the conclusion was two days later. yesterday 
What did you put in your AOD? I am curious.
Does it show the time and complications?
I don’t change anything. I left the dark themes for the AOD screen and switched to a 15% transparency image. I don’t take away the complications. Because it spoils the look.
This is an unacceptable situation. 
4 Likes
Totally ridiculous, I see more and more users complaining about Google’s messes…
3 Likes
BTW, this is the typical comment I get on the Play Store (on a daily basis) due to Wear OS 4/WFS issues that I can’t fix myself 
Really stressful
I don’t know what to answer anymore
3 Likes
I got this a lot too. Galaxy Wearable is another negative load to WF developers. This maybe overstated but It’s something like innocent people are accused of crimes that they haven’t committed and they are so helpless. 
. I just wish we have an option to refund this unfair comments.
2 Likes
That is why I currently have no motivation for new watch faces
3 Likes
I must say that that user was also quite kind, usually users leave 1 star and write vulgar comments making you look like you are incompetent…
1 Like
Yeah that’s still kind. There are rude users calling you scammer, waste of money or trash. Some users send emails regarding issues , we fix it, that’s fine and I hope all users are like this. Do you guys noticed it yet? we are both acting as Samsung and Google support to users for the issues you didn’t even created. 
What a headache. Now I’m thinking about the invitation from Facer and mobvoi.
3 Likes
Yes, if I think about all the time we dedicate to creating watch faces to obtain certain “prizes” (comments like “trash”, “scammer”, “I want a refund!” and similar things…) without it being our fault and that we can’t fix them, I’m horrified. We are the ones on the “battlefield” and we take all the bullets.
Every time I see a review arrive, before reading it, I get a lump in my stomach 
5 Likes
yeah right. I just hope we see better days even better than Tizen. Please help us Samsung. 
3 Likes
Oh yes, what good times those of Tizen… Especially Galaxy Store…
3 Likes
That’s funny bro. hahaha. I remember I farted because I got angry with this rude comment. Probably I got a bad spirit that time. hahaha
2 Likes
Same scenario here. But, I’m also a “traditional” app developer and I saw horrible reviews even when I published free and open source apps. I could write an entire book about it, but after years I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s inevitable, and it’s pretty normal that who is satisfied quite often doesn’t write anything, while who’s not complains in a childish and aggressive way (sometimes they act childish because they’re indeed children). What’s ironic is that many users consider us as companies, while the majority of us small developers are just a single person with a full time job or a student with little to no free time. I’m just dealing with it (even if I know that each bad review is a potential economic loss), but I understand your point about having to explain that certain problems are out of our control.
2 Likes
The examples listed in the icon design issue are generally not what they have an issue with
See the Icon design page the specs were recently changed.
It seems if you resubmit the memory issue if you get a different reviewer it gets passed. Just be sure you don’t have any or limited complication slots on your AoD
Ron
Samsung Developer Relations
I agree. I gave up on a watchface I spent so much time on and will just do more simple stuff. They really don’t seem to care about their Wear OS developers.
And I maybe know, why it passes with different reviewer.
So the Memory Budget issue happens only with WFS 1.4.20 and 1.5.7 watch faces. On Wear OS4, these watch faces are not running on their own but only xml is used by DeclarativeWatchFaceRuntime (Watch Face Format)
So, why it sometimes passes and sometimes not? Depends on where the review is happening, on what device or emulator version.
DWF on emulator produces huge amount of errors (logcat) and one of them is when complication slot is on watch face and watch face is installed / reinstalled, DWF starts throwing memory leak issues.
Now, there are two DWF versions:
Samsung: com.samsung.wear.watchface.runtime
Google (Emulator): com.google.wear.watchface.runtime
I’m not 100% sure but I think logcat is not showing these errors on Galaxy watch devices. Maybe also, not every reviewer is checking logs.
So I think it mostly depends on the reviewer.
Also, it appears that reviewers are using older versions of emulator.
This needs to be fixed by Google & Samsung. Asap.
Why? Because with latest stable WFS, our watch faces are not anymore handled by bundled runtime (wfs runtime) on API 33+ and there are clearly many issues with current DWF xml handling & complications handling. Reviewers are also not testing these watch faces properly.
Tomas
2 Likes