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

241–250 of 251 posts

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#241

Post by vanous »

julianlam wrote: post #103
alisonkisk wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the Huami ones open source or hackable?

Not really, no. Sort of. I have a Mi Band 5, and wanted to use GadgetBridge instead of the official Mi Fit or Amazfit/Zepp app. I was surprised to learn this was not easy to do. I needed to retrieve the Bluetooth MAC from the proprietary app via rooted app, or by logging in via script, which no layman would do. The watch is now paired with GadgetBridge, but the steps are hard enough to dissuade anyone from trying it.

> Not really, no. Sort of.

> I have a Mi Band 5, and wanted to use GadgetBridge instead of the official Mi Fit or Amazfit/Zepp app.

> I was surprised to learn this was not easy to do. I needed to retrieve the Bluetooth MAC from the proprietary app via rooted app, or by logging in via script, which no layman would do.

> The watch is now paired with GadgetBridge, but the steps are hard enough to dissuade anyone from trying it.

There is now also an android app to fetch the key and gps almanac, very simple to do, no root or python required.

Note: I kivy wrapped and apk packaged the above mentioned script.

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#242

Post by vanous »

alisonkisk wrote: post #79
numpad0 wrote: post #54

I’m not so sure if this is significant other than for the fact that it’s being distributed by PINE64. There are plenty other junk reprogrammable “smartwatch kit” that reuse Huami/Xiaomi-brand smartwatch enclosures while genuine Huami goes on to collect data more strategically at a larger scale. Recently I got a Mi Band 5 and learned they transfer BLE pairing over platforms - they make devices generate new MAC when un…

Are the Huami ones open source or hackable?

> Are the Huami ones open source or hackable?

The Amazfit Bip has an unofficial BipOs, which is a very cleverly created reverse engineered SDK allowing to uploaded custom compiled programs.

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#243

Post by neilparikh »

saagarjha wrote: post #218
neilparikh wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Who got the hardware?

Not sure, I didn't see any public announcements about that from Pebble.

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#245

Post by solidgol »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #13
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #4

Interesting. Shame there’s no GPS, though. As a cyclist I’d love a hackable GPS device that isn’t a (fragile, bulky) smartphone.

Check out the Amazfit Bip (S) watch. Cheap, sleek, waterproof, gorilla glass always-on display, battery lasts a month, does GPS tracking without smartphone connection and you can sync it via Gadgetbridge to keep all your data private without any account/cloud services.

Available on B&H : https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1566703-REG/amazfit_w...

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#246

Post by GekkePrutser »

emiliosic wrote: post #192
GekkePrutser wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pebble's over, sadly. I assume fitbit will want to do something with the assets, why else would they have bought it? (PS: I always wondered what was in it for them actually) I really hope the PineTime will pick up where it left off! But it's only in dev kit stage now.

I had the 1st two generation Pebbles, and now I'm using a Versa Lite. I do find a lot of resemblance on Pebble. Granted it's not open at all and their 'store' is, to me, much less inviting. Yeah not open source at all. However, I also recall that Pebble was looking into Android with their 'Pebble Core'. I do miss their e-ink screen

It wasn't eink! But low-power transmissive LCD. Best of both worlds IMO, faster refresh rate and still super low power.

I was a backer of the original pebble too.. It's a shame things didn't work out. I think they just grew too quickly and got caught up in too much investment money wanting too quick returns.

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#247

Post by goldforever »

eightails wrote: post #209
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…

Sure the Pine devices aren't particularly powerful. But they're not priced as powerful high-end devices. The Pinebook Pro is $199 -- what other thin, metal chassis ultrabook with reasonable display, input devices etc can you get for that price new? This watch is $25, no-one expects it to have monster specs. An older, proven low-power chipset arguably makes things easier for a device to tinker with anyway. That said,…

Well said!

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#248

Post by chrsw »

elgfare wrote: post #226
chrsw wrote: post #180

Cool project. I'm starting to become a fan of dual core BLE SoCs though. One small M0 to handle the BLE stack (which typically has to be high priority) and one M4 for the application.

The nrf53 is dual core with a dedicated network cpu.

Yeah that's a good one. Maybe the next gen of this watch will have that.

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#249

Post by teleforce »

blacklight wrote: post #196
bartvk wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And now they are releasing a smartwatch with a 64 MHz core and 64 KB of RAM - some specs you would have expected from a very cheap smartwatch released 7-8 years ago My Xiaomi Mi Band probably has similar specs. I bought it last year. You position this as outdated, but for me, the specs mean that I only have to charge it every couple of weeks.

Sure, if all you need is a watch that only shows you the time, can support a couple of skins and maybe comes with a basic heart rate monitor, then you probably don't need more. But I wouldn't advertise it (like Pine does) as "you can install any OS on it". I wouldn't even advertise it as a smartwatch TBH. It's more like a tiny embedded device to be worn on a wrist, with specs much more comparable to those of an ESP82…

You can go more than basic heart rate monitor since you can easily host a single lead ECG sensor with the "decade old" hardware that you are referring to, just like the latest smartwatch from Apple and Samsung. Heck, you can even host a multi-lead ECG sensor that is more capable than the latest smartwatch products from Apple and Samsung with the "decade old" processor. Couple that wearable smartwatch based multi-lead ECG sensor with any latest Android phone then you have a potent and energy efficient ECG system that is probably as good as the most expensive ECG machine at any hospital but powered only by a coin battery! This out-of-hospital gadget based on "decade old" processor is going to be useful to detect heart arrhythmia and ischemia that is the main cause of mortality in the world and capable of detecting pre-symptomatic Covid-19 as well [1].

I know this is a bad cliche, but this "decade old" processor is more powerful than the most powerful PDP-11 systems that have ever existed, that were last sold back in 1990s.

[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41551-020-00640-6

Re: Open Source Smartwatch

#250

Post by blacklight »

fsflover wrote: post #235
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…

> First came a phone with a 9-year-old A53 Cortex chipset. You might be interested in Librem 5 phone: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5 .

The Librem project got me really interested when it was released. But after reading many reviewes that complained about its usability (it seems that they haven't even bothered to make GTK apps fit on a small screen, and even charging and battery duration had macroscopic issues) I've decided to wait until the next iteration.
Post reply on HN