5 ms·
For me, it was because Pebble created a reputation as a hacker-friendly watch, as opposed to Apple and Google's closed gardens. Then I looked more into the Peb
by Decade 12y ago
For me, it was because Pebble created a reputation as a hacker-friendly watch, as opposed to Apple and Google's closed gardens.
Then I looked more into the Pebble, and discovered that it's a closed garden every bit as restrictive as Apple and Google, only with more distance between the walls. So, I canceled my order.
In particular, from the Terms of Use[0]:
Section II, paragraph 2, sentence 2: Do not reverse-engineer anything in the Pebble,
Section II, paragraph 2, sentence 3: Do not learn from Pebble to create anything,
Section III, paragraph 2, point 12: Do not say bad things about Pebble,
Section III, paragraph 2, point 13: Do not overload the Pebble servers, even accidentally,
and Section XIV, sentence 8: If the terms of service are illegal, then act like they are legal anyway.
[0]https://auth.getpebble.com/terms_of_use https://auth.getpebble.com/terms_of_use
- ntumlin 12y agoI had no idea that was in there. That's what I get for not reading the ToS. How does Section XIV, sentence 8 work? Does it have any legal standing at all?
- freehunter 12y agoThe way he mischaracterized it, no. If its illegal, it's illegal, and no contract is valid when it forces someone to do something illegal. The way it's actually worded, yes, most contracts will specify this. The way it's actually worded really means "if a certain part of this agreement is found to be invalid, the other (still valid) parts are still enforceable. Basically, if part of the contract is void, you can't void the entire contract. I would hope people can recognize that the way Decade portrays the contract is not the way it's actually worded.
- Decade 12y agoIt's very common to include the "other provisions hereof shall remain in full force" clause. I'm fine with that. But this is the first time I've seen "the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties' intentions as reflected in the provision," and I don't like the uncertainty about that, especially given my objection to Section II paragraph 2.
- freehunter 12y agoIf you search Google for that term, you'll find out how common it actually is. The first few results I see: Pearson Kentucky Fried Chicken Instagram Western Michigan University Florida State University Call of Duty NFL MIT City and County of San Francisco Cloudflare Yahoo WoWHead So whatever your uncertainty about it, it's not an uncommon legal concept, and you may already have agreed to it in the ToS of another service you use or company you do business with. edit - In fact, Apple combines those two clauses together in their ToS, but most assuredly they do have that stipulation: If any part of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, that portion shall be construed in a manner consistent with applicable law to reflect, as nearly as possible, the original intentions of the parties... http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms...
- Decade 12y agoThe other companies don't claim to be hacker-friendly, except for MIT, nor do they try to forbid you from making your own thing or practicing free speech. Pearson sucks. Why would anybody want to be compared to Pearson?
- freehunter 12y agoOkay, this conversation is over. You said it was an uncommon clause in a legal document, I showed that it wasn't and tried to comfort your fears, and that's as far as I'm willing to take it. You seem like you have an agenda against Pebble for something other than what is being stated, and I'm not going to get into that.
- Decade 12y agoEh, second page now, being pedantic is fine. I didn't say it was uncommon. I said that I didn't see it before. Especially not in connection with the other clauses. I canceled my order before I even reached Section XIV. I do have a mild case of Internet-rage at Pebble, but it's not unstated. I said it at the beginning of my first post in this thread: They cultivated an image of being hacker-friendly, but they're as restrictive as Apple and Google. It felt like a betrayal of principles.
- edgarvaldes 12y agoThe term you use, "illegal" is not the same as "invalid"
- api 12y agoIMHO one of the greatest current problems in computing is how to have openness and freedom on a platform without sacrificing user experience or letting it turn into malware hell. The walled gardens are walled to keep out the riff raff -- or at least the benefit of doing this is why vendors can get away with it. If there were no benefits, the market would reject this.
- lfowles 12y agoWithout the benefit of your rather uncharitable summarization: Section II, paragraph 2, sentence 2: You may not decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to obtain or access the source code from which any component of the Services or the Service is compiled or interpreted, and nothing in this Agreement may be construed to grant any right to obtain or use such source code. Section II, paragraph 2, sentence 3: You agree not to copy, duplicate or imitate, in whole or in part, any concept, idea, business model, business process, product, service or other intellectual property or other ideas or content embodied in the Services or learned by you from your use of or access to the Services. Section III, paragraph 2, point 12: 12. portray Company or its affiliates in a negative manner or otherwise portray its services in a false, misleading, derogatory or offensive manner; Section III, paragraph 2, point 13: 13. use the Services in any manner that could damage, disable, overburden, or impair our servers or interfere with any other party's use and enjoyment of the Services; Section XIV, sentence 8: If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the parties nevertheless agree that the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties' intentions as reflected in the provision, and the other provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
- Decade 12y agoWrong sentences. Section II, paragraph 2, sentence 2: You may not decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to obtain or access the source code from which any component of the Services or the Service is compiled or interpreted, and nothing in this Agreement may be construed to grant any right to obtain or use such source code. Section II, paragraph 2, sentence 3: You agree not to copy, duplicate or imitate, in whole or in part, any concept, idea, business model, business process, product, service or other intellectual property or other ideas or content embodied in the Services or learned by you from your use of or access to the Services.
- lfowles 12y agoThanks, I'll fix that. I figured if I had miscounted any of them, it would have been the section XIV one.
- wvenable 12y agoI completely and obviously violated their SDK terms of service and for that they sent me a few T-shirts and other Pebble swag.