4 ms·

This is not good. > We’ll compromise on almost everything else, but our one red line is this: Whatever we agree on, there has to be a future for Rebble in ther

This is not good. > We’ll compromise on almost everything else, but our one red line is this: Whatever we agree on, there has to be a future for Rebble in there. I can see through to the good intentions, but this mindset has a very dangerous sandbagging risk to the other party. Could you imagine a company forcing you to exclusively use them and only them as a vendor for the foreseeable future? Not just for a single contract, but for many contracts beyond it? Or one especially long contract? That’s just not fair. There are some other red flags here too. I am not convinced they have the ability to license a database they themselves scraped, nor if there’s any obligation to merge the particular code changes if any back upstream.

rkangel 11mo ago
That's not what they're demanding (or at least, that's only one way of giving them what they're demanding). A legal guarantee that they'll allow people to configure their watches for an alternate app store would probably be sufficient, for instance.
- lanyard-textile 11mo ago
  I agree, I think that’s the intended interpretation — but I’m disappointed that’s not their stated redline then, though. The ask there is for a future in app stores beyond Core Devices, not just for Rebble specifically. That is a call for Core to open their platform; what they have now is a call for Core to open their platform to them.