I’m curious… if I pay for a watch face based on functionality advertised, and it doesn’t work, can I get a refund, and if so, how?
I’ve seen some comments on some watch faces stating that X feature doesn’t work, and the reply from the designer was contact some 3rd party’s support for help.
That can’t be a legitimate answer.
Were that me, I’d insist on a refund, and it would be up to the designer to figure out how to get X feature working.
Thank you for your time and help with this question.
I’m curious which third party support people are being sent to. Can you please share that information?
The only official support I can think of would be Facer Support or the official support for your watch brand. I don’t know about Facer Pro created faces, but Facer does quality control on all of the Creator Partner designs to be sure they work on their supported brands. If a published design doesn’t work the problem is with your watch or there is a software problem somewhere. If it’s software, Facer will let you know and will work to fix the problem. They don’t just leave things broken and keep your money. Therefore, I’ve never heard of anyone asking for a refund.
Thank you for asking, since you prompted me to look it up.
Actually, disregard… you prompted me to look up “Little-Labs,” the support mentioned… turns out that IS Facer support, lol.
Either way, my question still stands that if I buy a face based on advertised functionality, and that functionality does not work on my watch, can I get a refund?
Someone shouldn’t be expected to wait however long for a fix IMHO. I work in software, I understand defect fix priorities… I wouldn’t want to have to wait, lol.
That answer should be “yes,” lol. I can/will buy it again once fixed.
The deal is that when we submit final faces for sale, Facer runs them through various tests to ENSURE all claimed features work as advertised. If they don’t, they get sent back to us to fix and are NOT SOLD until they work perfectly.
If someone sold you a watch face that says it has weather conditions and temps but it doesnt actually have that, then you should get a refund.
If someone sold you a watch face that says is has weather conditions and temps but that data isn’t as accurate as you’d expect, or it doesn’t update as quickly as you’d like, then that’s an issue with the 3rd party services that they use like open weather which is where they grab their weather data from.
However, I’m referring to a comment on a watch face stating that the app launcher on the watch face doesn’t work on his/her watch.
The designer’s reply was to contact Little-Labs for support.
Were that me, I’d want a refund, and I could always buy it again once either Little-Labs or the designer got back to me stating that the issue is fixed now.
It’s possible that this designer is a premium designer but not a partner. In this instance they don’t get any money for their face so cannot be expected to refund you.
It wouldn’t matter to me who would gives me a refund, but if functionality as in my picture above didn’t work… SOMEBODY should, lol.
There are a few paid watch faces I have in my Favorites wanting to purchase, but I don’t plan to spend a nickel if I can’t get a refund from someone if functionality simply doesn’t work at all.
A buyer certainly shouldn’t expect to have to wait until said functionality works… and what if it maybe can’t be fixed? Then what?
Of course. But in most cases, the users are not using the face correctly and didn’t read the instructions. In that case, maybe the user needed to unlock the face to be able to use those features or something, I dont know.
But if they actually do not work, the designer CANNOT issue the refund. Refunds MUST go through Facer/Little Labs.
That’s what I wanted to know… IF a watch face has some bit of functionality that turns out to simply not work at all, despite all troubleshooting efforts… there IS a mechanism for a refund, whether from the designer or Facer is irrelevant to me, just that you CAN get a refund from someone.
It brings up an interesting point on whose responsibility it is to make functions of facer work on a particular face or face/watch combo. I’ve never even thought about it before - I always thought if I designed a face, it was my responsibility to make sure it worked as advertised, and when things don’t work like they’re supposed to, I spend my time looking for a work around. But if features were added as per the “documentation”, then its really Facer’s problem, not the designers. Hmmm. Refreshing food for thought, and thanks for including the designers response. I don’t know the ins and outs of what causes the feature not to work in this case, but if they included it as per the docs, then their response is spot on. Their only responsibility is to follow the docs.
It is always the respossibility to manage refunds.
If you bought it on Google, it’s them, on Apple, It’s them. Amazon,Ebay and so on.
They should have the refund process if it was them youu bought it from and they should communicate with the seller.
In the cases of buying from the Apple and Google Stores, the descriptions can tell you what the store versision/paid version has but you will see, in the small print of the paid version that a facer premium account is required to enable those options.
If it does not make that clear in the description a refund is entitled.
Without a facer premium subscition, premium functions are not available.
I would visit facer.io, sbetee the fre face there and play with it before buying from Google or Apple in the first place.Better previews, better advice on the community.
The Trouble is @louandmaura is talking about an App launch Touch. To use that on a Face you have to be a Premium Subscriber but Do Not have to be a Partner and get your Face Checked. As a non premium designer I can make a Face that has a Fully working Compass on it an am happy to say that in the Description. But it will not work on Any Samsung Watch. So a few people who have just bought a watch not knowing that will be very disappointed.
I think it very amusing @louandmaura flagging Little Labs up as a Third Party. Bless I have to admit it feels like that sometimes.
Lets say if I want to add advanced features to my watchface, I have to pay for the “facer creator pro” access. If I share some of those, I as author still can not get any profit of it. So in case somebody paid directly for such face, or got it using premium access, I would not feel obligued to any refunds, if something did not work due watch/facer app limitations, no matter how was it advertised.
Now hypothetically (I do not intend knowingly doing such thing), if I stated there was water fountain built in, but the watch could not squeeze out any water of it self, it would be my fault of not being honest, but still I did not get any profit out of it, that I should refund. This would be more issue of violating terms of use and one could be banned for it, but I guess refund would be still on the service provider/payment recipient anyway.
Where does “misinformation” end and something just become “entertainment”? If I advertise a face with titanium hands, is that misinformation or is it just part of the entertainment value of designing virtual devices?
I see your point. It maybe could be better to express it like “the face has hands of titanium look”, but for short it could be omited as everybody should understand the faces are just virtual representations. (in my earlier post I have maybe over exagerated the example)
)