5 ms·

It's a smartwatch -- the watch didn't have a full OS installed when you first turn it on. It's meant to be paired with a phone. If you just want a watch witho

It's a smartwatch -- the watch didn't have a full OS installed when you first turn it on. It's meant to be paired with a phone. If you just want a watch without smart features then just get a watch. This complaint is ridiculous and nobody who owned a Pebble would take it seriously. Pebble failed because they needed better marketing, took VC money so they needed to grow fast, and focused on unnecessary hardware addons that nobody wanted (smart straps). There are still plenty of people buying out the remaining Pebble hardware. It was a good device and pretty good ecosystem.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> and focused on unnecessary hardware addons that nobody wanted (smart straps). Frankly, for me the "nobody wanted" part was the fitness focus - I initially got my Pebble precisely because they didn't try the sports angle like everyone else, but instead went for a hacker-friendly device and architecture. I'm not even sure if they put much resources into smartstraps - they just added and described a communication protocol. It wouldn't surprise me if this was just repackaging of a debugging functionality they needed. It's hard for me to say where things went wrong. Maybe they just tried to grow too fast.
- wvenable 9y ago
  Actually the part general consumers wanted was the fitness part -- this is what put them seriously behind other more poorly designed watches like the Fitbit. They didn't see the fitness angle until it was too late. Certainly there's no reason why a fitness angle had to interfere with the hacker-friendly architecture.
  - loulouxiv 9y ago
    I remember reading a post mortem interview of th founder around these lines, but can't find it anymore. They went all-in on the fitness thing when they found out the big market was there, thinking of it as their last chance for survival. Ironically I think that was what killed them in the end. Since they had a very loyal customer base (yes maybe not very big but enough so every kickstarter they launched was a massive success) they probably could have lived aside Fitbit, Apple etc. Reducing their burn rate by focussing on their market segment (productivity watch) and not trying to launch several products every year would probably have kept them afloat.
    - wvenable 9y ago
      Unfortunately since they took VC money they couldn't just sit by and be a small player with a loyal customer base. That would have been the ideal position for them and could have kept them going for a long time. But that doesn't satisfy their investors that wanted to see a high return on their investment. They never even really got their fitness side off the ground before they died. The Pebble 2 was their first fitness focused watch and they were already dead when it came out. The Pebble Round with a heart-rate monitor would have sold like hotcakes to women with the right marketing.
ignobleParting 9y ago
If you’re selling me something, and you call it a “kind-of-thing” I want it to be an actual thing first and a “smart kind of thing” second. Pebble was kind of not a thing. A little too smart for its own good.
- wvenable 9y ago
  It's a smart watch -- a watch that is smart. If you don't want the smart bit, just get a watch. I'm not sure why this is so surprising. What did you want it to do?
  - ignobleParting 9y ago
    No. Wrong. If I don’t want the smart bit, the device’s degradation into an ordinary version of a watch should be graceful, and without barriers or punishment. I’m not sure why this is so hard to understand and design toward. Why would anyone buy something that bricks itself if one refuses to play the mother-may-i game?
    - wvenable 9y ago
      Bricks itself? You can run the watch untethered if you want, it even has a perfectly serviceable airplane mode.
      - ignobleParting 9y ago
        It’s shipped in a locked state. A factory reset reverts it to that locked state. The device is rendered inoperable through a factory reset by design. You need a remote server to reactivate this watch. If you try to reset the watch, erase your own private information, and sell it, the person that receives it will need to engage in some problem solving to reactivate it. Or they’ll demand a refund, because they don’t know what to do, to reactivate a watch that can’t validate its own existence.
        crtasm 9y ago

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> and focused on unnecessary hardware addons that nobody wanted (smart straps). Frankly, for me the "nobody wanted" part was the fitness focus - I initially got my Pebble precisely because they didn't try the sports angle like everyone else, but instead went for a hacker-friendly device and architecture. I'm not even sure if they put much resources into smartstraps - they just added and described a communication protocol. It wouldn't surprise me if this was just repackaging of a debugging functionality they needed. It's hard for me to say where things went wrong. Maybe they just tried to grow too fast.

wvenable 9y ago
Actually the part general consumers wanted was the fitness part -- this is what put them seriously behind other more poorly designed watches like the Fitbit. They didn't see the fitness angle until it was too late. Certainly there's no reason why a fitness angle had to interfere with the hacker-friendly architecture.
- loulouxiv 9y ago
  I remember reading a post mortem interview of th founder around these lines, but can't find it anymore. They went all-in on the fitness thing when they found out the big market was there, thinking of it as their last chance for survival. Ironically I think that was what killed them in the end. Since they had a very loyal customer base (yes maybe not very big but enough so every kickstarter they launched was a massive success) they probably could have lived aside Fitbit, Apple etc. Reducing their burn rate by focussing on their market segment (productivity watch) and not trying to launch several products every year would probably have kept them afloat.
  - wvenable 9y ago
    Unfortunately since they took VC money they couldn't just sit by and be a small player with a loyal customer base. That would have been the ideal position for them and could have kept them going for a long time. But that doesn't satisfy their investors that wanted to see a high return on their investment. They never even really got their fitness side off the ground before they died. The Pebble 2 was their first fitness focused watch and they were already dead when it came out. The Pebble Round with a heart-rate monitor would have sold like hotcakes to women with the right marketing.

ignobleParting 9y ago

If you’re selling me something, and you call it a “kind-of-thing” I want it to be an actual thing first and a “smart kind of thing” second. Pebble was kind of not a thing. A little too smart for its own good.

wvenable 9y ago
It's a smart watch -- a watch that is smart. If you don't want the smart bit, just get a watch. I'm not sure why this is so surprising. What did you want it to do?
- ignobleParting 9y ago
  No. Wrong. If I don’t want the smart bit, the device’s degradation into an ordinary version of a watch should be graceful, and without barriers or punishment. I’m not sure why this is so hard to understand and design toward. Why would anyone buy something that bricks itself if one refuses to play the mother-may-i game?
  - wvenable 9y ago
    Bricks itself? You can run the watch untethered if you want, it even has a perfectly serviceable airplane mode.
    - ignobleParting 9y ago
      It’s shipped in a locked state. A factory reset reverts it to that locked state. The device is rendered inoperable through a factory reset by design. You need a remote server to reactivate this watch. If you try to reset the watch, erase your own private information, and sell it, the person that receives it will need to engage in some problem solving to reactivate it. Or they’ll demand a refund, because they don’t know what to do, to reactivate a watch that can’t validate its own existence.
      - crtasm 9y ago