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

251–258 of 258 posts

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#251

Post by Avamander »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #249
mazambazz wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen you make the comment about the OS being open-sourced a lot. But this largely has nothing to do with the OS. This is a conversation about infrastructure and data. The concern (from what I gathered and will condense greatly) is that Core will take in all the current app data and infrastructure setup, duplicate it themselves, move themselves off of Rebble, and continue developing on it privately.

Which to be absurdly clear - is exactly what Rebble did to Pebble. They scraped the apps and are now mad that someone else could do the same to them.

It is not. If Core wants, they can take the old Pebble dump and start building on top of it like Rebble has. All is fair.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#252

Post by micromacrofoot »

mazambazz wrote: post #247
micromacrofoot wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they wouldn't be extinguished? Core is literally offering to pay them per user and the OS is open sourced... how could they be extinguished under the deal as outlined? Core could easily say "actually we won't support Rebble at all it's too complicated to maintain this relationship"... and Rebble would then only exist as long as people are willing to maintain the now decade-old original watches... which is a diffi…

I've seen you make the comment about the OS being open-sourced a lot. But this largely has nothing to do with the OS. This is a conversation about infrastructure and data. The concern (from what I gathered and will condense greatly) is that Core will take in all the current app data and infrastructure setup, duplicate it themselves, move themselves off of Rebble, and continue developing on it privately.

Why would Core agree to pay Rebble a per user fee if they wanted to destroy them? they could just say "nope you get nothing"

And how would this prevent Rebble from continuing to operate in the event that Pebble failed again?

Open sourcing the OS makes continuity in the event of a failure much easier for Rebble right?

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#253

Post by micromacrofoot »

Avamander wrote: post #251
agloe_dreams wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which to be absurdly clear - is exactly what Rebble did to Pebble. They scraped the apps and are now mad that someone else could do the same to them.

It is not. If Core wants, they can take the old Pebble dump and start building on top of it like Rebble has. All is fair.

So Rebble wants to benefit from code they didn't write (Pebble apps)... but also wants to prevent Pebble from benefiting from code Pebble didn't write (Rebble updates to Pebble apps)?

This seems a little silly, no? rent seeking behavior for maintaining code they didn't write to begin with?

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#254

Post by micromacrofoot »

girvo wrote: post #124
abhorrence wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your points 1 and 2 are exactly spot on. And, assuming that both Rebble's and Eric's are being relatively forthright, that Eric is the one that is actually trying to come to an agreement that accomplishes that. Whereas Rebble is taking the position of "only we can be trusted". And with all the people replying to the original Rebble post with "I'm canceling my preorder", I'm pretty worried that Rebble has crea…

On the other hand when you have the person Eric quoted saying this like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/pebble/comments/1p0huk5/comment/npj... It makes me incredibly suspicious of Eric's motivations for some of this, and makes me less inclined to trust him.

aren't they publicly accusing him of theft at this point though? trust is out once that happens

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#255

Post by Avamander »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #253
Avamander wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not. If Core wants, they can take the old Pebble dump and start building on top of it like Rebble has. All is fair.

So Rebble wants to benefit from code they didn't write (Pebble apps)... but also wants to prevent Pebble from benefiting from code Pebble didn't write (Rebble updates to Pebble apps)? This seems a little silly, no? rent seeking behavior for maintaining code they didn't write to begin with?

The fact that Core is not willing to just start from the old dump publicly available already shows that it's not just "rent-seeking". Core clearly wants what Rebble has spent significant effort in not just maintaining but also building.

They're entitled to it just because in some sense Core is a successor to Pebble? No, not really.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#256

Post by micromacrofoot »

Avamander wrote: post #255
micromacrofoot wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Rebble wants to benefit from code they didn't write (Pebble apps)... but also wants to prevent Pebble from benefiting from code Pebble didn't write (Rebble updates to Pebble apps)? This seems a little silly, no? rent seeking behavior for maintaining code they didn't write to begin with?

The fact that Core is not willing to just start from the old dump publicly available already shows that it's not just "rent-seeking". Core clearly wants what Rebble has spent significant effort in not just maintaining but also building. They're entitled to it just because in some sense Core is a successor to Pebble? No, not really.

Of course it's rent-seeking, akin to squatting — Rebble took Pebble apps developed at no cost to the users, and then maintained them and added cost. In some cases they might actually be required by the licenses of individual apps to open source their maintenance.

No one's actually entitled to anything here on either end (legally), I see 0 work being done to actually contact the original authors to seek permission or licensing details.

AFAIK, there wasn't a blanket license that covered all apps in the ecosystem... so each app would vary. In the absence of a license all rights are held by the original developers.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#257

Post by Avamander »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #256
Avamander wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Core is not willing to just start from the old dump publicly available already shows that it's not just "rent-seeking". Core clearly wants what Rebble has spent significant effort in not just maintaining but also building. They're entitled to it just because in some sense Core is a successor to Pebble? No, not really.

Of course it's rent-seeking, akin to squatting — Rebble took Pebble apps developed at no cost to the users, and then maintained them and added cost. In some cases they might actually be required by the licenses of individual apps to open source their maintenance. No one's actually entitled to anything here on either end (legally), I see 0 work being done to actually contact the original authors to seek permission or…

> Rebble took Pebble apps developed at no cost to the users, and then maintained them and added cost.

Again, if that's all it were, Core could and should just take that old Pebble dump and use that. Why bother Rebble if they haven't done anything as you imply.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#258

Post by mazambazz »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #249
mazambazz wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen you make the comment about the OS being open-sourced a lot. But this largely has nothing to do with the OS. This is a conversation about infrastructure and data. The concern (from what I gathered and will condense greatly) is that Core will take in all the current app data and infrastructure setup, duplicate it themselves, move themselves off of Rebble, and continue developing on it privately.

Which to be absurdly clear - is exactly what Rebble did to Pebble. They scraped the apps and are now mad that someone else could do the same to them.

I don't think it's equivalent. When Rebble did what they did, it was because Pebble was going under and they had no EOL plan. Rebble took it upon themselves to carry the torch without having been passed it.

If Core were to do the same thing here, it's not the same, because Rebble is still active. You can't kill what's already dead (Pebble), but Rebble is very much still alive.

Post reply on HN