Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Smartwatch

pine64.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 251 posts

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#211

Post by justinclift »

kken wrote: post #94

Ok, just to make sure I understand this correctly. - This is basically a commercial smartwach (the Colmi P8) that is based on a well documented SOC, the nordic nRF52832 - The open source version comes with an enclosure that is not glued shut, so that it is easy to access testpoints on the pcb. - Development is done by accessing the nRF51 SWD interface with pogo pins or similar. The programming interface can be a stan…

The main developer of TinyGo (a version of Go for embedded devices) added support for the PineTime a while back:

https://tinygo.org/microcontrollers/pinetime/

With that, you can write Go code which (when compiled) is then flashed to the watch for running directly on the hw. No need for an OS layer underneath.

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#212

Post by Eric_WVGG »

beagle3 wrote: post #198
blacklight wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's exactly my point when I speak of compromises. If you want to be nude and pure then you go for the A72/A53, well aware that you're selling hardware that is almost a decade old and can't be used as a daily driver today. Otherwise, as unpleasant as it can be, you have to make a deal with Broadcom/Qualcomm, or get some other vendors to license their ARM chipset to you. The latter doesn't seem like the end of…

> you're selling hardware that is almost a decade old and can't be used as a daily driver today. My iPhone 6S is more than 5 years old, and is perfectly usable as a daily driver (and my SO's iPhone 6 is too - it's 6 years old, only runs iOS 12, but still gets security updates and is perfectly usable). It's fine if on the freedom/performance/up-to-dateness tradeoff, you're not pine64's customer. Many people are.

That's a kind of a… difficult comparison. The 6S was right when Apple shifted from chips that were highly competitive to chips that were ridiculously overpowered.

If you're making a point about 5-year-old hardware being still useful today, I think you need to reference typical 5-year-old hardware. The 6S was weird (albeit in a good way).

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#213

Post by neilparikh »

blacklight wrote: post #188

I'd be the perfect target for the products of a company like Pine. A long-time geek who uses open-source software on nearly all of his devices, a tinkerer who doesn't mind recompiling a kernel or picking a solderer to make things work, and someone who seeks for absolute flexibility from his devices with zero corporate compromises. Unfortunately, the mediocre hardware used in their devices keeps holding me back. First…

64 MHz is a bit too low, but I think being in that range is the right choice to make, even ignoring cost concerns. The Pebble Time had a 180 MHz processor, and I think as a smartwatch, it was a much better product than the Apple Watch.

When you have a powerful processor like the Apple Watch does, your power draw is pretty high. This is why the Apple Watch only gets 1-2 days of battery life, while the Pebble has 7 days, and the Apple watch just got a display that is always on, while the Pebble has had a always on display since day 1.

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#214

Post by neilparikh »

deadw3ight wrote: post #171

After reading what others have said and feedback on PineTime and what a good hackable watch should have, it seems like Pebble should resurrect from the grave as a hackable watch. I mean the pebble time had 128kb ram (this only has 64k ram), an color epaper display, 150mAh battery (over a week battery life), heart rate sensors, etc. Heck its even being supported by the open source community AFTER it was discontinued.…

Fitbit only bought the software IP, not hardware: https://investor.fitbit.com/press/press-releases/press-relea...

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#215

Post by saagarjha »

comex wrote: post #202
beagle3 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're selling hardware that is almost a decade old and can't be used as a daily driver today. My iPhone 6S is more than 5 years old, and is perfectly usable as a daily driver (and my SO's iPhone 6 is too - it's 6 years old, only runs iOS 12, but still gets security updates and is perfectly usable). It's fine if on the freedom/performance/up-to-dateness tradeoff, you're not pine64's customer. Many people are.

If you’re talking about 5-year-old Apple products, the first Apple Watch is also 5 years old and runs at 520 MHz with 512 MB of RAM. I expect it too is usable. But that’s quite a bit different from 64 MHz and 64 KB of RAM.

I wouldn’t be too sure of that. It was slow out of the gate and got progressively worse as time went on; it’s entirely possible that a much slower device might feel more responsive.

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#216

Post by saagarjha »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #212
beagle3 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're selling hardware that is almost a decade old and can't be used as a daily driver today. My iPhone 6S is more than 5 years old, and is perfectly usable as a daily driver (and my SO's iPhone 6 is too - it's 6 years old, only runs iOS 12, but still gets security updates and is perfectly usable). It's fine if on the freedom/performance/up-to-dateness tradeoff, you're not pine64's customer. Many people are.

That's a kind of a… difficult comparison. The 6S was right when Apple shifted from chips that were highly competitive to chips that were ridiculously overpowered. If you're making a point about 5-year-old hardware being still useful today, I think you need to reference typical 5-year-old hardware. The 6S was weird (albeit in a good way).

iPhone 5s on iOS 12 was a fairly decent phone.

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#218

Post by saagarjha »

neilparikh wrote: post #214
deadw3ight wrote: post #171

After reading what others have said and feedback on PineTime and what a good hackable watch should have, it seems like Pebble should resurrect from the grave as a hackable watch. I mean the pebble time had 128kb ram (this only has 64k ram), an color epaper display, 150mAh battery (over a week battery life), heart rate sensors, etc. Heck its even being supported by the open source community AFTER it was discontinued.…

Fitbit only bought the software IP, not hardware: https://investor.fitbit.com/press/press-releases/press-relea...

Who got the hardware?

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#219

Post by mavhc »

deadw3ight wrote: post #170
lambda_obrien wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would pay so much for a hackable watch like this with a 3 or 4 color epaper display, I'd almost pay as much as an apple watch if it was high quality hardware and had a great open API and toolchain.

Go on ebay and purchase a Pebble Time. Color epaper display, fully hackable even after being discontinued thanks to the dev community who continues to update it with "Rebble" the open source version of the OS it ran on.

ePaper is just their name for a transflexive LCD display. It's not eInk type technology

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#220

Post by krzyk »

bb123 wrote: post #164
kungito wrote: post #159

I so want to move to a standalone smartwatch and not have to carry a phone. I need nfc payment with a bank supporting the whatever (Google Pay or something), GPS with a maps app, LTE with support for whatsapp and calls + sms and bluetooth for wireless buds for calls. Don't even need music. Maybe I could even skip NFC payment by having a slot to insert a cut contactless credit card although I like the extra security o…

Doesn’t the 4G Apple Watch support all of your requirements? I suppose if you had to a buy an iPhone to set it up that could be a substantial investment but an iPhone 6S would do the job.

But switching OS environment is a bigger issue than the price. If you e.g. depend on more "hackability" like Tasker app you would be in a big surprise on iOS.
Post reply on HN