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

171–180 of 258 posts

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#171

Post by amarant »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #19
radlad wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subscription fee was what enabled them to host these services. From their blog post, they mention spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on infrastructure and software. I expect that the connections and skills involved in running the Rebble web services don't directly translate to creating a hardware product. That said, I think you are right that Rebble is feeling left out - and that it is hard to figure out e…

I'll be totally honest: I have no idea what they possibly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on. That seems totally absurd and reckless.

Seems cheap to me. Host anything and you're gonna need developers. Developers are expensive. A hundred thousand dollars is pretty much what you'd pay for a single developer in a year. 5 Devs is still a small team and that's half a million dollars per year.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#172

Post by Brian_K_White »

renewiltord wrote: post #154
Brian_K_White wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is. I mean you gave no specifics so by all means, pick any statement and say what's incorrect about it.

Are you confusing the DMCA safe harbor process with first party distribution of copyrighted material? I'm not an IP maximalist or anything but what you're saying is straightforwardly not the process for distribution of copyrighted material. It is not actually the case that I can legally distribute whatever I like so long as I stop when asked. These are US orgs so assuming US law here. Since you ask for specifics, thi…

It is not wrong. All I said was that Rebble has demonstrated that they respect copyright. Taking down an app on request means you acknowledge that the person making the request has the right to do so.

It's true that a rightsholder could go further and sue for damages, and maybe even win. So what?

The last time that happened, was Rebble actually found guilty of operating in bad faith? Were the damages significant or trivial? Did Rebble try to deny the authors rights?

Unknown because it has never happened so it's immaterial. These imaginary possibles are possible but cannot be used as proof of Rebble behaving badly unless and until it actually happens and Rebble behaves badly or is found by a court to have been.

What we DO have is that when an app author asserts their copyright, Rebble complies.

I am not saying, and never did say that it's explicity legal to redistribute these apps without having first aquired the copyright from the authors.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#173

Post by Brian_K_White »

Defletter wrote: post #170
Brian_K_White wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? The original article and practically everyone in this thread has tried to make the argument that Core should have what they are asking for, which is the apps that they did not husband and everything else that they did not build. If Core were just building their own new app store from scratch there would be no discussion. The only reason there is even any discussion at all is because they are not doing that, the…

That's because you have incorrectly inferred from our statements saying that Core should get the data, or rather that the data should be publicly archived, as us saying that Core has a right to the data. You are again constructing a strawman to argue against. EDIT: Also, if Rebble scraping it from Pebble isn't theft, then neither would Core scraping it from Rebble. Problem solved.

Only Pebble can make the claim that Rebble stole from Pebble, or that Pebble was materially damaged by it.

Rebble did not have any agreement with Pebble the way they did with Core.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#174

Post by renewiltord »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #172
renewiltord wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you confusing the DMCA safe harbor process with first party distribution of copyrighted material? I'm not an IP maximalist or anything but what you're saying is straightforwardly not the process for distribution of copyrighted material. It is not actually the case that I can legally distribute whatever I like so long as I stop when asked. These are US orgs so assuming US law here. Since you ask for specifics, thi…

It is not wrong. All I said was that Rebble has demonstrated that they respect copyright. Taking down an app on request means you acknowledge that the person making the request has the right to do so. It's true that a rightsholder could go further and sue for damages, and maybe even win. So what? The last time that happened, was Rebble actually found guilty of operating in bad faith? Were the damages significant or t…

Hmm okay. You have what I'd consider a fairly idiosyncratic meaning for what "respect copyright" means. All right, I suppose under that definition it is true.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#175

Post by anon7000 »

stevage wrote: post #102
mazambazz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the post on rebble.io > We made it absolutely clear to Eric that scraping for commercial purposes was not an authorized use of the Rebble Web Services. So, another point of consideration is whether looking at names and pictures so you can personally favorite them constitutes as commercial use. Based on what Eric said, I don't really think so.

> I wanted to highlight some of my favourite watchfaces on the Pebble Appstore. It was for a commercial purpose. Not a personal one.

But to be clear, the agreement does allow him API access to view apps and display metadata. Presumably, to build App Store experiences on top of the data. Which could easily include something like stack ranking your favorite apps as a review system, or displaying favorites.

Saying this is scraping is so pedantic, and given that Eric’s company is paying for access to the API, they should kick rocks.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#176

Post by 1shooner »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #172
renewiltord wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you confusing the DMCA safe harbor process with first party distribution of copyrighted material? I'm not an IP maximalist or anything but what you're saying is straightforwardly not the process for distribution of copyrighted material. It is not actually the case that I can legally distribute whatever I like so long as I stop when asked. These are US orgs so assuming US law here. Since you ask for specifics, thi…

It is not wrong. All I said was that Rebble has demonstrated that they respect copyright. Taking down an app on request means you acknowledge that the person making the request has the right to do so. It's true that a rightsholder could go further and sue for damages, and maybe even win. So what? The last time that happened, was Rebble actually found guilty of operating in bad faith? Were the damages significant or t…

>Rebble has demonstrated that they respect copyright.

Have they not been redistributing copyrighted material without a license to do so?

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#177

Post by anon7000 »

diddid wrote: post #159

Trying to read all these threads and perspectives is truly exhausting but I lean more on the Rebble side. The idea that someone steps away for 10 years and then expects to take the work of others to use them and throw them away is tech toxicity 101. I had owned two of the original pebbles, but I honestly think this looks bad on everyone and will gladly ignore every future article on either of these two groups.

That’s not at all what the threads seem to suggest, where the new company is literally paying Rebble for API access and trying very hard to include them in a lot of ways.

Reality is that after a decade+ with no hardware updates, there is really no future for the Rebble platform… without new hardware.

So you’re suggesting the people trying to actually revive the ecosystem by building new hardware shouldn’t be able to continue working on the open source OS they founded, or play around with clients for an API they pay for? Come on.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#178

Post by ayaros »

The tone of the original post was inflammatory for sure. And there are certainly some things that could be said about Eric's post; he probably shouldn't have posted those messages out of context.

I'm not a Pebble user, so I don't know how the app install process works, but can't Core just create their own store from scratch, not based on the existing app catalogue, and have that coexist as an alternative option to Rebble? Then users who want access to that extensive back catalogue can use Rebble's store. Let developers and users pick the stores they want to publish to and download from, respectively.

Given that Core is a commercial enterprise, it doesn't seem appropriate for them to rely on apps that were scraped from the original Pebble store. Core is a separate commercial entity from the original Pebble, and doesn't inherit the relationships between original Pebble and the developers which published to their store. By creating a store from scratch, Core can reestablish each of those relationships one by one. That would go a long way towards helping Core build back whatever trust they may have lost (it seems some users are still bitter about the original closure of Pebble, and I don't blame them). Otherwise, what you have is a commercial entity profiting off of a bunch of applications for which they don't own the right to distribute.

As a developer myself, I might be ok with my app being archived due to an emergency situation... but having that app be republished by a commercial entity is a red line.

I don't have an ethical problem with the back catalogue existing, but it should be hosted by a non-profit. Core can position it's store as an place for new, or updated apps that are being actively maintained by developers, which is definitely a selling point. Rebble can position it's store as a back catalogue of apps that existed on the original pebble, offered on an as-is basis. Which is also a selling point, because who knows what great gems you might find in there...

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#179

Post by 1shooner »

ayaros wrote: post #178

The tone of the original post was inflammatory for sure. And there are certainly some things that could be said about Eric's post; he probably shouldn't have posted those messages out of context. I'm not a Pebble user, so I don't know how the app install process works, but can't Core just create their own store from scratch, not based on the existing app catalogue, and have that coexist as an alternative option to Re…

This was my conclusion after reading both sides. It seems that Rebble is inevitably going to be an archive, while new development will be distributed on Core's store. Core temporarily needs some of its (unlicensed) catalog to bootstrap its new products.

Having the Core store populated with fresh development seems like good platform management anyway. Let the Rebble store be the 'classic apps' archive.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#180

Post by aag »

I have owned at least one of every Pebble watch since the beginning, have written watch faces for myself (but never posted them on the store), have received my Pebble 2 Duo, and am looking forward to receiving my Pebble Time 2. I am thrilled that Eric Migicovsky and his team are bringing the Pebble back to life. It was amazing that the Rebble team kept the watches alive all this time. But it's all open source, and doing that shouldn't give Rebble any kind of special say. There's no reason that "there has to be a future for Rebble in there" or that Rebble has to be "the core of the community." That sounds like nothing more than bruised egos.
Post reply on HN