•   over 7 years ago

Gear S emulator not the same as real device? (app update rejected)

I changed the configuration of my gear (tizen) app, to be compatible with the new Gear S.
I made the changes as suggested by samsung:



The app centers fine (fills width, black bars on top and bottom) on the Gear S emulator that comes with the ide.

But the app was rejected by samsung, because it did not scale properly, the send me a screenshot with the app centered vertically, and alligned to the left side. black bar at the right too.

Have others the same experience, or am I doing something wrong here?

I am not planning on buying a Gear S, since the number of downloads will never pay for the price of the Gear S.


  •   •   over 7 years ago

    I haven't experienced your issue but you can easily test on a real device without buying one. Denvy has a blog with some great written instructions at: http://denvycom.com/blog/samsung-remote-testing-lab/ . Note: due to none of the devices being in the USA, they are a pain to use since clicks barely register due to the lag. But I found them useful for testing screen compatibility.

    Hope this helps and good luck!

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    ok thank you, I will try that.

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    Tested it with the Samsung RTL, lookes fine (as expected)
    resubmitted binary for approval.

    I am almost at the point of giving up on samsung galaxy apps store, drives me crazy.

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    Sometimes the error is on their end. I've had an app rejected where I couldn't duplicate what they experienced so I simply recompiled and resubmitted it. It then passed without issue despite no code or resource changes.

    Anyway... the process is indeed frustrating and the sales aren't great. Finding them better than Android Wear though. For example, "Clockwork Mice" shows as a top 100 downloaded application on my Samsung S3 / Gear 2 Neo setup. Released Friday on Android Wear? Zero downloads outside of people I directly know.

    Similarly, "Penguin Survivor" was released that same day. It has a whopping 2 downloads from people I do not personally know. That is far smaller than the amount that download that free app on Tizen.

    So... despite all of the frustrations... it seems like it is somehow a better platform for a hobbyist developer. 0.o (Though just my own personal experience in the two markets with the same exact application).

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    I just hate their approval process, and it is useless anyway, because real problems they didn't find (i found the myself later)
    It makes publishing an app update cumbersome, because it takes a long time, and it all is a big gamble if it will be approved or not, like you described.
    they might suddenly find a problem that you can't reproduce, or a small unimportant issue that always has existed in previous version has become a failure now.


    My (clock) app has a selection option for an image from the gallery, but it appears that single selection mode is not implemented in the wearable sdk (confirmed on Tizen developer forum), only in the full tizen sdk, so I can only do multiple image selection and use the first selected image.
    They keep telling me in each app update that it should use all selected images, but that is not what the app does or can. sometimes it is just a recommendation, sometimes a failure.
    to get mad about...
    how can things be a problem on their side..... thats plain stupid, then they don't have their things in order.
    But it makes sense, because I think the testers can be all over the world. I think I have seen Korean testers in the video attached in the approval report, but also German testers...

    They better just do a simple check on mallicious code and approve it.
    the users will do the rest.
    if there is a real issue, then at least we can publish a fix within a few hours, like in Google Play store.
    Now it sometimes takes weeks to get a fix published.

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    Guess what, it got rejected again, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

    I tested it on the Gear S emulator and on the Samsung Remote Test lab Gear S.
    Both were fine.
    but during testing it fails, because it does not scale on the Gear S.
    What more can I do?

    Also they had a few recommendation this time, (which they never had before), because they didn't understand the app.
    They claimed the pedometer value was on top of another value, but they didn't know you can move the value around, to put it anywere you want.
    They didn't even respond on my questions to the review team that I had attached.
    the Gear review team is completely incapable if you ask me....

    They also claimed the battery image of the app showed a different battery level then is should do.
    but they compared it with a static icon in the app, the icon to switch on or off the battery level indicator. lol

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    @gear2apps - that really stinks. Wow. 0.o Is there a video you can upload and point us to in order to better see what sizing error is occurring and when? Otherwise if it works on the Remote Test Lab then it makes zero sense that it isn't working on the devices Samsung QA uses.

    Are you submitting a new binary for the screen size? Perhaps an issue is that the old binary isn't set for 320X320 devices and is the one they are downloading/using? Or in your project settings file, do you have one binary set for display set for 320X320 screens and the other set for 480X320? (Forget the name of the file and not at home at the moment to check the exact names for this).

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    This is how it looks on the emulator:


    this is an image I got in the rejection report how it looked on the test device:


    I forgot to make a screenshot of the RTL.

    I was hoping to keep one code-base for both devices, but I give up, I will make a separate version for Gear S, for the 5 users owning a Gear S ;-)

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    I've had an update (description only) rejected, because previously approved screenshots may contain an "unauthorized logo".

    They were photos containing a Samsung phone, which tends to have a logo on the front.
    It's not like the app would run on any non Samsung phone.

    I don't even know how I would reason with these people if I thought it would work, nor how I would ask for permission. So I resubmitted with virtual duct tape over the logo, so now the app runs on a generic black rectangular phone (which I'm sure has been patented by Apple ;). Fortunately, the watches don't have a logo on the front.

    It is likely a challenge to get enough critical mass on any smartwatch.

    Despite all the trouble, it is a miracle that some Gear users are willing to pay for paid apps. Not always the case in Google Play.

    In Android Wear and Google Play, you are a small fish in a big pond, with no part of the pond really sectioned off for wearable apps, unless you are featured by the Google Play marketing team.

    In Samsung, you are in a smaller, less organized pond guarded by alligators that may occasionally let you into the water if their mood is right.

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    Lol, very well described, completely agree.

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    Beside working differently on emulator, RTL, and actual device (heck, I always thought that RTL IS the actual device), it's also interesting that on the screenshot they sent you the clock hands are at correct position but with wrong scale, while for the dial face both scale and position are wrong. I would double check the transformations and all position and scaling values.

    Anyway, what I did with my game to keep a single code for multiple resolutions was similar to:

    canvas = document.querySelector('canvas');
    canvas.width = window.innerWidth ;
    canvas.height = window.innerHeight ;
    context = canvas.getContext('2d');

    I used window inner height and inner width instead of relying on document dimension to get the screen resolution. (I actually use WebGL context for the game, and have relative positioning of elements because I don't rescale anything...)

    For watches I think that it is necessary to have two projects because of different problem, and that problem is the size of the watch icon. I think that you can put only one icon in project, and icons for watches are of different aspect ratios on Gear and Gear S, so the icon in the watch list will not look nice on both watches unless you make two separate binaries.

  •   •   over 7 years ago

    thank you for tinking along...

    I was planning to use this approach also, and have two binaries.
    But only in my spare time I will work on it, it is very low priority at the moment.
    (same as the S. app reviewers ;-))

    My emulator stopped working, after I updates the HAXM software on my laptop.,
    So the RTL is my only 360x480 test resource at the moment.....

Comments are closed.