Appworthy

Digitium Watch Face

★ Digitium Watch Face is designed for Wear OS smartwatches NEW!

RichFace
Get it onGoogle Play
Google Play rating3.6★929 ratings
PriceFreeIn-app purchases
Age4+Store age rating
CategoryLifestyle
DeveloperRichFace

What we found

Full report

Some warnings 2 things we found but could not confirm. Nothing confirmed. Checked: 96 reviews and the Android app’s code.

Money

From our automated analysis, 24 Oct 2026.

This analysis describes version 1.1.8 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-24 .

The store lists the version as varying by device, updated 2024-10-06.

Preview

Screenshot 1Screenshot 2Screenshot 3Screenshot 4Screenshot 5Screenshot 6Screenshot 7Screenshot 8

Store screenshots supplied by the developer.

About this app

★ Digitium Watch Face is designed for Wear OS smartwatches

NEW! Digitium watch face for Wear OS, an easy to use, top modern and mix of elegant and digital interactive functions.

Watch face contains a huge number and user friendly settings on the watch and the phone companion app.

The watch face CANNOT be installed on smartwatches with TizenOS (Samsung Gear 2, 3, ..) or any other OS except Wear OS

In case of any problems, don’t rate it 1-star, instead please contact us on: [email protected]. You can help make us better.

★ PERMISSIONS Explained

https://www.richface.watch/privacy

From the developer’s store description.

For developers and the curious

The full report

The evidence, sources, measurements and versions behind every label above.

Findings and evidence

1 published · 2 shown, not confirmed

Positives 1

Specific evidence of a useful property, within the stated scope.

Developer says data deletion can be requested

Measured

The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

Sources
The store listing
Agreement
A measured fact from one deterministic, checkable source.
Where measured
From the Google Play listing
Definition

The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.

Open evidence

One source only — shown, not confirmed 2

Open observations that have not cleared the evidence bar.

Loot boxes with no stated odds

One source only

Sells a randomised reward ("Automatic") and states no drop rates or odds anywhere in the app's own text

Sources
The app's own on-screen text
Agreement
Only one kind of source so far. Shown, not counted.
Where measured
Found in the Android app’s package

This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.

Definition

The app sells randomised rewards — crates, chests, packs, pulls — and states no drop rates or odds anywhere in its own text, so what the money buys is unknowable before paying.

How we know

Package artefact

sha256:02fb0a7cf2ddf08575d6c5687ed54dadb8a34dc594685463a4010056c61d64c1

Paywall blocks the basics

One source only

The app's own text says: "Buy Premium"

Sources
The app's own on-screen text
Agreement
Only one kind of source so far. Shown, not counted.
Where measured
Found in the Android app’s package

This observation has not cleared the required evidence standard.

Definition

The core of the app — not extras — sits behind payment, or previously-free function moved behind a paywall.

How we know

Package artefact

sha256:02fb0a7cf2ddf08575d6c5687ed54dadb8a34dc594685463a4010056c61d64c1

Nothing was published as a thing to watch for in this assessment. That is not a finding that nothing is wrong with the app.

What reviewers report

96 reviews read · 0 review-based observations

No review-based observation is published in this assessment. That does not establish that reviewers had no problems.

Measurements

8 measured · 0 not assessed

“Not assessed” means we could not measure it. It is never a zero and never a pass.

From store data and reviews

Developer replies to reviews
Replies to at least 1 review in 20
Price in the store description
The store description doesn’t list prices (most don’t)
Cancelling, in the store description
The store description doesn’t say how to cancel (most don’t)
Themes reported by reviewers
No theme reported
Counted from the reviews we have read for this app. "No theme reported" means no theme reached our reporting threshold — it is not a finding that nothing is wrong with this app, and we do not say it is.
Five-star share of ratings
Under 65% five-star
Arithmetic on the stores' own published rating counts. It says nothing about why the ratings fall where they do.

In the app package we scanned

Android package 1.1.8, scanned 24 Oct 2026. These describe that package, not the current store version.

Sensitive permissions
1–2 requested
Counted against a fixed list of eighteen sensitive Android permissions: sixteen runtime permissions, among them location, camera, microphone, contacts and SMS, and two the user must switch on in system settings, drawing over other apps and usage access. Requesting one is not itself a finding.
Analytics or tracking SDKs in the scanned package
1–2 found
Advertising SDKs in the scanned package
1–2 found
Counted as distinct SDKs in the package we scanned. One mediation bundle can contribute several, so this is not a count of advertisers.
How we know

Supporting measurements: not a complete list of possible harms or positives. Measurement vocabulary 1.4 · how these are measured

Versions and dates analysed

Assessed 24 Oct 2026

This analysis describes version 1.1.8 of the app (the version number recorded inside the package we inspected), analyzed 2026-10-24 .

The store lists the version as varying by device, updated 2024-10-06.

Store update history

Each store’s release notes, as the developer wrote them. They are the developer’s words, not ours.

Google Play

Version varies by device · 2024-10-06

No release notes were provided for this version.

Assessment record

Status
Automated analysis
App identifier
digitium-watch-face
Assessment date
24 Oct 2026
Sources used
4 independent signals: user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest
Reviews read
96
Package examined
Android · 1.1.8 · scanned 24 Oct 2026
Human inspection
Not completed

Assessed 2026-10-24 from 96 user reviews and the app's package.

How we know
Measurement vocabulary
1.4

How this page was produced

Analyzed 2026-10-24 Version analyzed: 1.1.84 independent signals96 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest. Not yet checked: the store listing and the store privacy disclosure.

Store facts

Google Play

What the stores publish. Store ratings are the stores’ numbers, not Appworthy’s, and are never averaged across stores.

Google Play

Store rating
3.64 ★ · 929 ratings
Version
Varies by device
Updated
6 Oct 2024
Price
Free · In-app purchases
Age rating
4+
Size
Not supplied
Open in Google Play
Developer
RichFace
Category
Lifestyle
Listing price
Free · In-app purchases

Purchases the store lists

 What this app sells
Google Play doesn’t publish per-purchase prices.

Method and limits

What this report can and cannot show

How the automated analysis works

This assessment is produced automatically. Four independent signals are read — user reviews, SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.

No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.

There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.

Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.

Limits of this report

  • A package scan is static. It identifies code and text in one Android build. It does not measure a live ad session, test a deletion request, or count the steps needed to cancel.
  • Reviews keep their sample. A review-only charge shows distinct reviewers, the share and the sample size, and is published only once it clears that label’s published threshold. Calibration labels are machine-drafted and not yet confirmed by a person.
  • Not assessed is a state. It is never a zero and never a pass.
  • A missing label is not a clean bill of health. It means the evidence did not support one, not that the app is problem-free.
Not yet human-reviewed. A hands-on test can confirm or contradict a finding and adds its own measurements; it does not change a measurement row. Hands-on inspections are not yet open.
Review thresholds Read the methodology For developers

Request a correction

[email protected]

Write to [email protected], or use the form. Name the finding, the app version and the evidence that needs correcting. Factual corrections are free and never depend on buying anything.

Report a factual error — free Email a correction