| ▲ | pokoleo 5 hours ago |
| Summarizing the dispute, for anyone interested: Rebble's "one red line" is "there has to be a future for Rebble in there." They fear being replaced/made irrelevant after Core builds their own infrastructure using Rebble's work. They want guarantees that if they give Core access to the app store data, Core won't build a proprietary/walled garden that cuts Rebble out. There's also emphasis on "our work," "we built this," "we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars." They feel Eric isn't acknowledging where his infrastructure came from. Core Devices' thing is explicitly stating concern about relying on a third party (Rebble) for "critical services" his customers depend on. If "Rebble leadership changes their mind," they can't guarantee customer experience. They wants the app store archive to be "freely available" and "not controlled by one organization." They don't want to need "permission from Rebble" before building features (like free weather, voice-to-text) that might compete with Rebble's paid services. The fundamental fear seems to be business risk: being at the mercy of a nonprofit's decisions when his company has customers and obligations. Neither side seems to trust the other's long-term intentions, creating an impasse where both feel existentially threatened by the other's preferred arrangement. My take: I bought a watch in 2014. After the pebble 2 duo black fiasco (they ran out of stock, offered a white instead which I accepted 2 weeks ago, never shipped, and have ghosted my emails asking for shipping timelines.) I had high hopes, but given the messy interaction with the OSS world I'm considering cancelling my order for the duo and time two. |
|
| ▲ | margalabargala 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > They fear being replaced/made irrelevant after Core builds their own infrastructure using Rebble's work. They want guarantees that if they give Core access to the app store data, Core won't build a proprietary/walled garden that cuts Rebble out. It's understandable that Rebble fears someone doing this, since this is what Rebble did. Rebble took the original open-source Pebble work of thousands of independent developers, scraped it off the original store, and is re-offering it within their own walled garden and calling it "theirs". It's great Rebble kept things alive but they seem to be fearing a second one of themselves. > being at the mercy of a nonprofit's decisions when his company has customers and obligations. Both Rebble and Core Devices are for-profit companies, neither is a non-profit, so I'm not actually sure which you're referring to here. |
| |
| ▲ | shreddit 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Rebble sounds pretty much like a non profit to me > The Rebble Foundation is a non-profit organization that keeps the Pebble community alive. rebble.io https://rebble.foundation/ | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | They aren't a 501c3. When I wrote my original comment I did a search for Rebble among all 501c3 ores and they are not there. I looked closer after your comment. They appear to be a "Michigan Domestic Non-Profit Corporation". Why aren't they a 501c3? I have no idea. It makes me trust them less to be honest, that they are some sort of nonprofit but not a 501c3. | | |
| ▲ | c22 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 501c3 offers one narrow form of tax exempt status for a very specific type of non-profit organization with specific privileges and duties. Every organization is unique and many non-profit, tax-exempt, and even charitable organizations exist outside of that specific framework. If they're not soliciting donations from you I'm not sure why you'd care about their federal tax status. | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > If they're not soliciting donations from you I'm not sure why you'd care about their federal tax status. Because if they appear to be a normal company but call themselves a non-profit, I want to know what that actually means to them. Being a non-profit is generally a reason for community goodwill towards a company. Therefore being a nonprofit is attractive both to companies doing good, and charlatans seeking to capitalize on that goodwill. If you call yourself a nonprofit but don't talk anywhere about what that means to you and why, then you look like that second option. | |
| ▲ | apparent 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If they're not soliciting donations from you I'm not sure why you'd care about their federal tax status. Well, if they portray themselves as a "nonprofit" then most people who read that will think they are a 501c3, which is almost always the case. I don't know why they don't qualify for that status (if they don't), but it's possible that it's a reason I would care about when deciding whom to side with on issues like this one. The battle of for-profit versus non-profit comes across differently than for-profit versus Michigan Domestic Non-Profit Corporation (which for some reason does not qualify for IRS nonprofit designation). | | |
| |
| ▲ | cweagans an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer, but I have set up a 501c3 before. I think you have a misunderstanding of how that works. In many cases, you need both the state and federal non-profit designation (i.e. a Michigan domestic non-profit corporation would not pay state income taxes on charitable income + that same corporation would need the 501c3 designation from the IRS to have the same benefit at the federal level). Do you have positive confirmation that they are not filing as a 501c3? | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I think you have a misunderstanding of how that works. In many cases, you need both the state and federal non-profit designation (i.e. a Michigan domestic non-profit corporation would not pay state income taxes on charitable income + that same corporation would need the 501c3 designation from the IRS to have the same benefit at the federal level). Yes, I'm aware. And since the lions share of taxes is often federal, the 501c3 step does not generally get skipped, like it does here. Why would they voluntarily give themselves federal tax exposure if they were able to avoid it? > Do you have positive confirmation that they are not filing as a 501c3? I am positive that it has been over 2 years since they filed as a Michigan domestic non-profit. Therefore we all have positive confirmation that they did not attempt to become a 501c3 with an organization capable of doing so, at the time they became a nonprofit. It does not take 2 years to become a 501c3. I can't speak to their plans for the future. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | palmotea 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >> They fear being replaced/made irrelevant after Core builds their own infrastructure using Rebble's work. They want guarantees that if they give Core access to the app store data, Core won't build a proprietary/walled garden that cuts Rebble out. > It's understandable that Rebble fears someone doing this, since this is what Rebble did. That's an extremely uncharitable take. It's not like Rebble drove Pebble out of business. What I gather is basically Pebble fell apart on its own, and Rebble picked up the pieces to keep things working. It seems what Core wants do here is take what Rebble build/maintained and drive Rebble into irrelevance. | |
| ▲ | apparent 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Both Rebble and Core Devices are for-profit companies, neither is a non-profit, so I'm not actually sure which you're referring to here. Looks like Rebble is now a nonprofit? > have evolved along the way from a loose collection of co-conspirators, to Rebble Alliance, LLC, to our current non-profit Rebble Foundation [1] 1: https://rebble.io/2025/10/09/rebbles-in-a-world-with-core.ht... | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I did some digging in a reply to a sibling comment. Basically, they are not a 501c3. They are a Michigan state specific nonprofit. My original comment was made after a 501c3 search turned up nothing. I don't know why they would decline to be a 501c3 and instead only be a Michigan nonprofit. | | |
| ▲ | pavon 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The 501c3 tax exception is specifically for charitable organizations, and the law and IRS interpretations exclude a number of groups that would colloquially fall under that description. On top of that there are many groups who aren't doing charitable work, but want to reinvest all revenue back into the organization and not be beholden to shareholders (private or public). | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's not true. Charitable organizations are just one of many groups that qualify as a 501c3. Groups dedicated to scientific, literary or educational purposes also quality. The reason this is a problem is that Rebble is using their being a "non-profit" as a point of advertisement but there is essentially no difference between someone owning a for-profit company, and someone controlling and heading a non-profit company where they set their own salary and are not a 501c3. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | apparent 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Huh that seems very odd. And it's strange (and possibly misleading) to say you are a "non-profit" under these circumstances. Any chance they recently changed status, and it's just not showing up yet? | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Any chance they recently changed status, and it's just not showing up yet? The Rebble Foundation incorporated in 2023, so I don't think so. I agree it's strange. The advantages of being a 501c3 in the US are immense, and if you meet the criteria, it is not difficult to become one. Essentially every organization larger than 6 people in the US that could be a 501c3, is one, for this reason. So if they aren't, I assume it's because they can't be. Which makes me wonder why. | |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just FYI. 501(c)(3) is not the only federal nonprofit designation. I have dealt with 501(c)(7) (basically a club), and I suspect there are others. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | pokoleo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They sent an email a few minutes after I posted, saying that their fulfillment centre dropped the ball and they're escalating internally. I guess complaining on HN worked. Hope they can figure out the dispute with Rebble. Maybe they end up hosting apps on a package manager and create some binding contract? |
|
| ▲ | gorbachev 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Core went bankrupt once doing exactly what they want to do now. I think the concern users will be left holding the bag, again, is reasonable. |
| |
| ▲ | apparent 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pebble went out of business but Core is set up very differently. They have an incredibly lean team and Eric appears to have self-funded much of the HW and SW development before taking a dime from customers. There's a chance that some awful fate will befall Eric, of course, but other than that I am not especially concerned that the new company will fold. Eric seems to understand what caused that outcome, and is specifically looking to avoid making the same mistakes. |
|
