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

Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

ericmigi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 258 posts

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#141

Post by Pfhortune »

This whole thing is presented a bit hyberbolically on both ends.

Rebble has valid concerns about the ecosystem surviving beyond Core. Their concerns about the closed-source parts of what Core has developed is valid (WRT the Core app frontend) and Eric positioning himself as a "benevolent dictator" is a reasonable red flag to raise. The next dictator (in case of acquisition) may not be so benevolent.

But while their stewardship of the app store and continuance of services is laudable, they can't really justifiably cry foul when someone "scrapes" their archive of mostly-scraped (from the original store) content.

Hopefully this teaches both sides that an open ecosystem means operating in the open. Which means making all source available not hiding vital components, and also not squawking about someone scraping the store.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#142

Post by computably »

infotainment wrote: post #103
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #10

I view this entire thing through an extremely simple, reductive lens: Rebble effectively had free reign on this ecosystem for years, and could have at any time decided to try and capitalize on it further. They still can! But instead they're apparently interested in rent seeking while Core makes real headway. It's clear that Eric and Core want to make something now. It's not clear what Rebble wants, but it's clear the…

Agreed -- While I admire their work in keeping the lights on, Rebble doesn't necessarily make sense in a world where the "real" Pebble company has returned. Keep in mind that this is their goal statement (straight from their FAQ): > Our goal is to maintain and advance Pebble functionality, in the absence of Pebble Technology Corp. Eric's new company, by effectively re-creating Pebble Technology Corp, is an existentia…

Alternatively, I could say that Eric Migicovsky's track record is building a for-profit company that ultimately failed, and with the new company, he obviously, explicitly intends to prioritize selling new hardware. Whereas Rebble kept the lights on for devices that would otherwise have been bricks, as a collective of volunteer hackers.

Their missions conflict because Pebble2's potential customers largely overlap with Rebble's current users, but I would say their aims are quite different.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#143

Post by Brian_K_White »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #116
Brian_K_White wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Rebble does not claim to "own" your app, they only claim to have done a lot of work saving and patching abandoned apps and recreated a whole service for managing and distributing them, wrote new apps, published new apps along with the old, to support watch owners that Pebble abandoned. Because they never had the right to redistribute it. This is like YouTube shutting down and me offering a bunch of videos I downloa…

Core doesn not have any rights to it. Pebble did, and Pebble threw it away.

Rebble honors copyright by taking anything down that a rightsholder says to.

That's all copyright grants, and they are doing it. If you own an app and don't want Rebble to redistribute it, they won't.

Core has no claim to anything.

This is CoreTube coming along years later "Hey I used to work for Youtube. Give me your copy of all those videos other people actaully made and own, that Youtube threw away years ago. Also give me your whole NewTube back end site you wrote from scratch because I want to make CoreTube now and I don't have my old Youtube stuff any more because I sold it."

Like holy fucking are you kidding me?

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#144

Post by Pfhortune »

gmarull wrote: post #98

Hi there, Gerard here. I work for Core as a firmware engineer, happy to answer questions as well. I personally understand Rebble fears, for example when we forked and kept development under Core Github. However, I think we tried to be as transparent as possible and explained the reasons behind. While Liam (ex-Pebble) did an excellent job integrating NimBLE, it is also true that we also offered to do the work. However…

Thank you for all your work on this!

I know it's not your focus, but what's your take on the Core app frontend being closed source? I know libpebble3 is open and has the important bits, but it still feels bad to be unable to build an APK or grab that from F-Droid.

I had initially assumed it was because of some kind of dependency redistribution issue, but I think I read somewhere it was to stymie clones being developed and using the app. But that's part of an open ecosystem, no? That anyone can integrate into it?

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#145

Post by protocolture »

apparent wrote: post #90
gorbachev wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Core went bankrupt once doing exactly what they want to do now. I think the concern users will be left holding the bag, again, is reasonable.

Pebble went out of business but Core is set up very differently. They have an incredibly lean team and Eric appears to have self-funded much of the HW and SW development before taking a dime from customers. There's a chance that some awful fate will befall Eric, of course, but other than that I am not especially concerned that the new company will fold. Eric seems to understand what caused that outcome, and is specif…

It could sell, it could enshittify. Trusting a founder seems daft in the year of our lord 2025.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#146

Post by c22 »

apparent wrote: post #89
c22 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

501c3 offers one narrow form of tax exempt status for a very specific type of non-profit organization with specific privileges and duties. Every organization is unique and many non-profit, tax-exempt, and even charitable organizations exist outside of that specific framework. If they're not soliciting donations from you I'm not sure why you'd care about their federal tax status.

> If they're not soliciting donations from you I'm not sure why you'd care about their federal tax status. Well, if they portray themselves as a "nonprofit" then most people who read that will think they are a 501c3, which is almost always the case. I don't know why they don't qualify for that status (if they don't), but it's possible that it's a reason I would care about when deciding whom to side with on issues lik…

Looking over Michigan's Nonprofit Corporation Act it seems a Domestic Non-Profit Corporation would meet the IRS 501c3 requirements. The act even borrows definitions from IRS Publication 501.

It looks like Michigan Domestic Non-Profit Corporations cannot allow their proceeds to benefit private parties. So they are a nonprofit if that helps you pick a side. It seems like an asinine point to pivot on, though.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#147

Post by protocolture »

quantumwoke wrote: post #46

For some additional context, the screenshotted Rebble board member has commented here: https://www.reddit.com/r/pebble/comments/1p0huk5/pebble_rebb... Looks like they were not consulted by Eric before this post.

Yeah thats kinda bad.

Look, I am a bit of a hypocrite on this, I had a fun time when OpenAI dropped the musk emails.

But this is not a great look for pebble.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#149

Post by dmitrygr »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #96
tomaskafka wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am one of the developers who did make Pebble apps - here's a screenshot with the Pebble version of Weathergraph on Eric's watch: https://x.com/weathergraph/status/1959253197664469246 Today is the day I found out Rebble is claiming the ownership of my app's binaries. All I can say is that they don't have it.

[flagged]

> Rebble clearly honors copyright, ex: removing apps on request of the author. Thst's the only right any copyright holder ever has is to say you can't redistribute copies.

That is not at all how copyright works, like ... at all.

If it worked as you claim, I could host a copy of disney movies on my site till disney asks me to stop, and then i stop doing that and walk away free. Clearly this is not at all how that would go down. No matter who abandons what, how, or why, for at least 90(?) years after a work was created in USA, it cannot be distributed without permission. End of story.

If you were distributing my work, even if you stop when I ask, I can sue you and will win damages for every copy you distributed without permission. The damages would be multiplied by 3(?) if you were doing so knowingly (undeniable in this case)

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#150

Post by Defletter »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #143
philipwhiuk wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rebble does not claim to "own" your app, they only claim to have done a lot of work saving and patching abandoned apps and recreated a whole service for managing and distributing them, wrote new apps, published new apps along with the old, to support watch owners that Pebble abandoned. Because they never had the right to redistribute it. This is like YouTube shutting down and me offering a bunch of videos I downloa…

Core doesn not have any rights to it. Pebble did, and Pebble threw it away. Rebble honors copyright by taking anything down that a rightsholder says to. That's all copyright grants, and they are doing it. If you own an app and don't want Rebble to redistribute it, they won't. Core has no claim to anything. This is CoreTube coming along years later "Hey I used to work for Youtube. Give me your copy of all those videos…

You keep repeating that Core has no rights to that data, which is true, but it's a refutation to an argument no-one in this thread has made. What we're saying is that Rebble has no rights to that data either.

Rebble's theft of that data was 'allowed' in the same way that Nickelback allow those "look at this graph" memes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7aqZyRuP1Q): it's copyright infringement but they don't care so they don't enforce their rights. It's not like trademarks with its use-it-or-lose-it clause. What I'm claiming here is that people who made apps and watch faces for Pebble didn't care (assuming they knew at all) because it was for preservation purposes.

But now that Rebble is hoarding it to themselves, to the exclusion of Core, a revived Pebble company, those copyright holders may become less willing to tolerate the copyright infringement. And let's be clear: their rights do not begin and end with just getting it taken down.

Post reply on HN