4 ms·

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 shu

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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
      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.
      - Avamander 1y ago
        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.
        micromacrofoot 1y ago
        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?
        Avamander 1y ago
        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.
        micromacrofoot 11mo ago
        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.
- agloe_dreams 1y ago
  Isn’t EEE exactly what Rebble is doing? They embraced the the pebble community with a copy of the App Store, extended it with their own weather apis and the like, and then now are trying to extinguish any ability for Core to implement their own solution without paying them more.
  - Avamander 1y ago
    No. Core can absolutely implement their own, just not on top of their work.

Avamander 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
    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.
    - Avamander 1y ago
      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.
      - micromacrofoot 1y ago
        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?
        Avamander 1y ago
        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.
        micromacrofoot 11mo ago
        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.
agloe_dreams 1y ago
Isn’t EEE exactly what Rebble is doing? They embraced the the pebble community with a copy of the App Store, extended it with their own weather apis and the like, and then now are trying to extinguish any ability for Core to implement their own solution without paying them more.
- Avamander 1y ago
  No. Core can absolutely implement their own, just not on top of their work.