When do we get to the point an AI can auto complete the removed driver and other code?
Google open-sources the Pebble OS
181–190 of 216 posts
Re: Google open-sources the Pebble OS
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not exactly what is meant by Commoditise your complements. "Commoditise your complements" in this setting would mean making watch OSs free for everyone in order to make demand for watches go up.
> This is not exactly what is meant by Commoditise your complements You're right. The strict interpretation would be the more people who wear smartwatches, the wider Google's surveillance net. Is there a commercial strategic term for denying your adversaries oxygen?
> Is there a commercial strategic term for denying your adversaries oxygen?
There's Microsoft's Embrace, extend, and extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
Re: Google open-sources the Pebble OS
#183Give Google their due. It’s infinitely easier and risk free to just bury and ignore. Thank you, Google!
Re: Google open-sources the Pebble OS
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my experience in large (and small) companies, trying to get something that is internally dead open sourced is usually not a huge fight against people saying no, just a laundry-list of things that need to be done before everyone will sign off on it. One motivated person at a decently high enough level can get it pushed through, as long as whoever the person making the decision asks about it says, 'eh, ok.'
> Instead, we took a more direct route - I asked friends at Google (which bought Fitbit, which had bought Pebble’s IP) if they could open source PebbleOS. They said yes! Over the last year, a team inside Google (including some amazing ex-Pebblers turned Googlers) has been working on this. And today is the day - the source code for PebbleOS is now available at github.com/google/pebble (see their blog post). https://er…
Ha! Called it.
Re: Google open-sources the Pebble OS
#185Good for them, but also, what a colossal waste. Fitbit brought Pebble, Google brought Fitbit. They had everything to make a better version of a product that people _loved_, that _I_ loved. And what had them done? Nothing but a blatant display of anticompetitive power. (Yes I am still mad, 8 years later)
then, after the damage is done, they throw some scraps to the plebs and the comment section is full of thank yous to the monopolist
Re: Google open-sources the Pebble OS
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did wear my Pebble until it died, and then never found another smart watch worth it for me. Will keep an eye on this for sure.
May I ask why it was so special for you? As I did not participate in all the hype and now I'm a happy owner of a Garmin watch and it does seem like it is closer in specs to Pebble than most other smartwatches. Other than the openness.
I wear a Garmin and I still miss my Pebble Time that died to swelling battery.
- Always on. Garmin has option to do that as well but it reduce the battery life to like 3 days. In outdoor my Pebble Time is very bright with zero backlight.
- 5 days battery. I went on a trip to Japan without its proprietary charger, by the time I board my flight back it was on power save mode and it died the moment the plane landed. Garmin could do this if you set it to power saving mode, but the Pebble is in standard mode. One could argue that the Garmin do have more stuff like health monitoring that Pebble didn't.
- Cheap and no frills. I want a second screen for my phone, not a health tracker. Originally my Pebble Time shipped with zero fitness features, and it later added a step counter once it's clear that the market direction go that way.
- Garmin is quite thick, Pebble Time is thinner
- The UI is simple - press up for past event, down for future event (calendar). Press the middle button for menu. Hold are configurable. Garmin has 4 main menus which are very confusing (fitness menu, shortcut menu, apps menu, system menu).
- Lots of free apps and watch faces which I actually used (like a music app that show album art). I don't see any apps I would want to use on the Garmin, and they're mostly paid. The "hide in a hole while ceiling crush the map" game on Pebble was really well done. Now my Garmin use the simple time in Verdana watch face because I cba to find a decent one.
- Even with low framerates, Pebble managed to deliver cute little animations. Replying to message show a flying paper plane, screen transitions have suitable animations (not generic ones like Android), and the best one is muting an apps show a Ostrich putting its head under the ground. The animation also hides how slow the hardware actually is, with later OS versions stalling over a second or two after a second long animation.
- I think the phone app UI is not as good as say, Apple Watch, but it focus on apps and the store without the fitness features. Garmin's app is entirely about fitness and they hide smartwatch stuff in a menu plus another separate Connect IQ app.
Overall the PebbleOS feel like a really solid and polished product than any smartwatch today. It do fewer things than most smartwatches, but that's all I care about and everything it does is very polished.
Re: Google open-sources the Pebble OS
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did wear my Pebble until it died, and then never found another smart watch worth it for me. Will keep an eye on this for sure.
May I ask why it was so special for you? As I did not participate in all the hype and now I'm a happy owner of a Garmin watch and it does seem like it is closer in specs to Pebble than most other smartwatches. Other than the openness.
It was cheap, simple, did everything I wanted from a smart watch, and wasn't annoying to use (never had to worry about the battery). It wasn't a matter of a killer feature, more just the lack of the problems I see with all the alternatives since. Every time I've looked at a replacement option, I've noticed something that just made me not bother getting it.
Re: Google open-sources the Pebble OS
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 12 years old. They put good work in. But it's missing an absurd amount of stuff the mass market considered mandatory a decade ago. Consumer electronics, for better or worse, is mostly about spending enough money to get your product name in front of hundreds of millions, and Google knows that well.
I don't think Google understands hardware given its lack of success in it.
The lack of success in hardware is intentional. Hardware is a low margin business that will hurt their bottom line.
Re: Google open-sources the Pebble OS
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Google understands hardware given its lack of success in it.
The lack of success in hardware is intentional. Hardware is a low margin business that will hurt their bottom line.
When did you write this in 2005? Apple would like a word with you.
Re: Google open-sources the Pebble OS
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Google understands hardware given its lack of success in it.
The lack of success in hardware is intentional. Hardware is a low margin business that will hurt their bottom line.
Right, like this world's largest company called Apple, which gets most of the revenue from its hardware sales. Pixels are not cheap either and given its low specs (Tensor SOC), the per-unit margin has to be quite decent. OTOH, there are significant fixed development costs which you want to spread over as many devices as possible to increase the net margin.
The lackluster value and sales of Google hardware is no master plan, it's a simple incompetency.