4 ms·

I view this entire thing through an extremely simple, reductive lens: Rebble effectively had free reign on this ecosystem for years, and could have at any time

I view this entire thing through an extremely simple, reductive lens: Rebble effectively had free reign on this ecosystem for years, and could have at any time decided to try and capitalize on it further. They still can! But instead they're apparently interested in rent seeking while Core makes real headway. It's clear that Eric and Core want to make something now. It's not clear what Rebble wants, but it's clear they are feeling left out. That obviously sucks but it's clear from what both sides are saying that Core has been trying to involve Rebble in their efforts. That's certainly noble and I'm not sure others would do the same. Would Eric be able to do this all without Rebble? Lots of commenters have been saying "no" but I'm skeptic. I was an early Pebble user. I stopped using it before they went bust, and while I was aware of Rebble, there was nothing compelling there for me. It's neat that they have maintained a copy of the original watchfaces but beyond that I don't perceive a ton of value. I don't like the subscription fee. I'm sad they never took a serious crack at making a Rebble watch. I hope everyone finds a way forward, together, but I'm not optimistic.

radlad 11mo ago
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 exactly how they can fit into Core's vision. But I think there are a couple of primary and immediate issues: 1. Core wants Rebble's data - so clearly there is value here, but Core is framing this debacle like Rebble is irrelevant. Also, I don't know that Google would've ever released PebbleOS if Rebble didn't exist 2. Rebble wants to see the future of Pebble remain open-source or at least compatible with their services, so that if Pebble goes bust again, the community can continue on
- modeless 11mo ago
  Core doesn't want Rebble's data. They want the data from the original Pebble store, which is not owned by Rebble. It's the work of thousands of independent developers and it should be shared freely, not kept in a walled garden with "no scraping" terms added on. It's actually offensive that Rebble is using other developers' data (that they originally scraped from Pebble) as a bargaining chip in their contract negotiation that they made into a public squabble.
  - nosrepa 11mo ago
    So, this? https://github.com/aveao/PebbleArchive/tree/master/PebbleAppStore https://github.com/aveao/PebbleArchive/tree/master/PebbleApp...
  - radlad 11mo ago
    I don't think that's quite right - Rebble has updated a number of these apps to keep them supported. As sibling commenter posted, the original apps are available publicly.
    - mikepurvis 11mo ago
      Updated themselves? Or accepted/hosted updates from third parties?
      - Anonbrit 11mo ago
        Updated themselves
        whyenot 11mo ago
        Are they still open source? If so, why does it matter who updated them?
        repeekad 11mo ago
        I think that’s the crux of the issue is rebble isn’t under any obligation distribute them open source, unless say the original app had a “copyleft” policy?
        micromacrofoot 11mo ago
        AFAIK the original apps were individually licensed by the creators... so Rebble would need to have permission before claiming anything for their own except in the case of explicit permissive licenses (like MIT). In some cases (copyleft licenses) Rebble would be required to make their maintenance also open source.
- xyzzy_plugh 11mo ago
  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.
  - kstrauser 11mo ago
    Yeah. If they’d said “hundreds, or maybe thousands of dollars”, ok, sure. But that just cannot possibly be an inherently expensive service to host.
    - joelhaasnoot 11mo ago
      There is also weather and voice recognition services. If implemented with third party APIs those costs can add up.
      - modeless 11mo ago
        They charged a subscription for those. If they lost money on that they have nobody to blame but themselves.
        radlad 11mo ago
        This thread is very confusing to me - they charged a subscription for these features. They weren't losing money - they were spending it. Money in, money out.
        modeless 11mo ago
        Their original statement was "we’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on storing and hosting the data" that was scraped from the Pebble app store. So, explicitly not on the other services. I have to agree with other commenters that $200,000+ seems like an extravagant bill for hosting this data for 8 years with a web frontend and maybe 20,000 users.
        11mo ago
micromacrofoot 11mo ago
Yeah agreed, and I hope the Rebble people read this. They're being very protective and Eric is seemingly trying to include them when he could literally just shut them out. They did good work in absence of anyone maintaining the product, but they're running software on a product they literally did nothing to build.
- Avamander 11mo ago
  It's not just running it, they have built on top of it. Embrace, extend, extinguish is exactly what the Rebble team is afraid of. If extinguished and Core goes bust, the community would be left holding the bag yet again. Rebble doesn't want that, why would they.
  - micromacrofoot 11mo ago
    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 difficult task given the availability of superior hardware from the original manufacturer. With the Core deal they could actually grow and they get a significantly longer lease on life even if the hardware company fails again.
    - mazambazz 11mo ago
      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.
      - agloe_dreams 11mo ago
infotainment 11mo ago
Agreed -- While I admire their work in keeping the lights on, Rebble doesn't necessarily make sense in a world where the "real" Pebble company has returned. Keep in mind that this is their goal statement (straight from their FAQ): > Our goal is to maintain and advance Pebble functionality, in the absence of Pebble Technology Corp. Eric's new company, by effectively re-creating Pebble Technology Corp, is an existential threat to that mission: If there is someone else maintaining and advancing Pebble functionality, then what is the purpose of Rebble? It does seem unfortunate though -- I hope they can all work something out.
- spiffytech 11mo ago
  I largely agree, but I think there's merit to Rebble's argument that Core Devices could be here today, gone tomorrow. I'd hate to see Pebble die again only for Rebble to have disbanded in the meanwhile. Then the community has nothing but code repos.
  - micromacrofoot 11mo ago
    the OS is open sourced, so it's much less attached to Core Devices than the first go around
- computably 11mo ago
  Alternatively, I could say that Eric Migicovsky's track record is building a for-profit company that ultimately failed, and with the new company, he obviously, explicitly intends to prioritize selling new hardware. Whereas Rebble kept the lights on for devices that would otherwise have been bricks, as a collective of volunteer hackers. Their missions conflict because Pebble2's potential customers largely overlap with Rebble's current users, but I would say their aims are quite different.
  - philipallstar 11mo ago
    You could also say his track record is making things as open as possible so things like Rebble can spring up if necessary, but also in negotating deals that keep core services running for years after the purchase, and then after the purchaser's purchase.
ls-a 11mo ago
I've heard not so positive things about doing business with this dude. I'm not surprised by this toxicity around the product

radlad 11mo ago

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 exactly how they can fit into Core's vision. But I think there are a couple of primary and immediate issues: 1. Core wants Rebble's data - so clearly there is value here, but Core is framing this debacle like Rebble is irrelevant. Also, I don't know that Google would've ever released PebbleOS if Rebble didn't exist 2. Rebble wants to see the future of Pebble remain open-source or at least compatible with their services, so that if Pebble goes bust again, the community can continue on

modeless 11mo ago
Core doesn't want Rebble's data. They want the data from the original Pebble store, which is not owned by Rebble. It's the work of thousands of independent developers and it should be shared freely, not kept in a walled garden with "no scraping" terms added on. It's actually offensive that Rebble is using other developers' data (that they originally scraped from Pebble) as a bargaining chip in their contract negotiation that they made into a public squabble.
- nosrepa 11mo ago
  So, this? https://github.com/aveao/PebbleArchive/tree/master/PebbleAppStore https://github.com/aveao/PebbleArchive/tree/master/PebbleApp...
- radlad 11mo ago
  I don't think that's quite right - Rebble has updated a number of these apps to keep them supported. As sibling commenter posted, the original apps are available publicly.
  - mikepurvis 11mo ago
    Updated themselves? Or accepted/hosted updates from third parties?
    - Anonbrit 11mo ago
      Updated themselves
      - whyenot 11mo ago
        Are they still open source? If so, why does it matter who updated them?
        repeekad 11mo ago
        I think that’s the crux of the issue is rebble isn’t under any obligation distribute them open source, unless say the original app had a “copyleft” policy?
        micromacrofoot 11mo ago
        AFAIK the original apps were individually licensed by the creators... so Rebble would need to have permission before claiming anything for their own except in the case of explicit permissive licenses (like MIT). In some cases (copyleft licenses) Rebble would be required to make their maintenance also open source.
xyzzy_plugh 11mo ago
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.
- kstrauser 11mo ago
  Yeah. If they’d said “hundreds, or maybe thousands of dollars”, ok, sure. But that just cannot possibly be an inherently expensive service to host.
  - joelhaasnoot 11mo ago
    There is also weather and voice recognition services. If implemented with third party APIs those costs can add up.
    - modeless 11mo ago
      They charged a subscription for those. If they lost money on that they have nobody to blame but themselves.
      - radlad 11mo ago
        This thread is very confusing to me - they charged a subscription for these features. They weren't losing money - they were spending it. Money in, money out.
        modeless 11mo ago
        Their original statement was "we’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on storing and hosting the data" that was scraped from the Pebble app store. So, explicitly not on the other services. I have to agree with other commenters that $200,000+ seems like an extravagant bill for hosting this data for 8 years with a web frontend and maybe 20,000 users.
        11mo ago

micromacrofoot 11mo ago

Yeah agreed, and I hope the Rebble people read this. They're being very protective and Eric is seemingly trying to include them when he could literally just shut them out. They did good work in absence of anyone maintaining the product, but they're running software on a product they literally did nothing to build.

Avamander 11mo ago
It's not just running it, they have built on top of it. Embrace, extend, extinguish is exactly what the Rebble team is afraid of. If extinguished and Core goes bust, the community would be left holding the bag yet again. Rebble doesn't want that, why would they.
- micromacrofoot 11mo ago
  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 difficult task given the availability of superior hardware from the original manufacturer. With the Core deal they could actually grow and they get a significantly longer lease on life even if the hardware company fails again.
  - mazambazz 11mo ago
    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.
    - agloe_dreams 11mo ago

infotainment 11mo ago

Agreed -- While I admire their work in keeping the lights on, Rebble doesn't necessarily make sense in a world where the "real" Pebble company has returned. Keep in mind that this is their goal statement (straight from their FAQ): > Our goal is to maintain and advance Pebble functionality, in the absence of Pebble Technology Corp. Eric's new company, by effectively re-creating Pebble Technology Corp, is an existential threat to that mission: If there is someone else maintaining and advancing Pebble functionality, then what is the purpose of Rebble? It does seem unfortunate though -- I hope they can all work something out.

spiffytech 11mo ago
I largely agree, but I think there's merit to Rebble's argument that Core Devices could be here today, gone tomorrow. I'd hate to see Pebble die again only for Rebble to have disbanded in the meanwhile. Then the community has nothing but code repos.
- micromacrofoot 11mo ago
  the OS is open sourced, so it's much less attached to Core Devices than the first go around
computably 11mo ago
Alternatively, I could say that Eric Migicovsky's track record is building a for-profit company that ultimately failed, and with the new company, he obviously, explicitly intends to prioritize selling new hardware. Whereas Rebble kept the lights on for devices that would otherwise have been bricks, as a collective of volunteer hackers. Their missions conflict because Pebble2's potential customers largely overlap with Rebble's current users, but I would say their aims are quite different.
- philipallstar 11mo ago
  You could also say his track record is making things as open as possible so things like Rebble can spring up if necessary, but also in negotating deals that keep core services running for years after the purchase, and then after the purchaser's purchase.

ls-a 11mo ago

I've heard not so positive things about doing business with this dude. I'm not surprised by this toxicity around the product