| ▲ | xyzzy_plugh 5 hours ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | johnmaguire 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | xyzzy_plugh 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is also weather and voice recognition services. If implemented with third party APIs those costs can add up. | | |
| ▲ | modeless 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They charged a subscription for those. If they lost money on that they have nobody to blame but themselves. | | |
| ▲ | johnmaguire 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | johnmaguire 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think this is a bit of a disingenuous reading of the article when the surrounding text states: > Since then, we built a replacement app store API that was compatible with the old app store front end. We built a storage backend for it, and then we spent enormous effort to import the data that we salvaged. We’ve built a totally new dev portal, where y’all submitted brand new apps that never existed while Pebble was around. [...] And the App Store that we’ve built together is much more than it was when Pebble stopped existing. We’ve patched hundreds of apps with Timeline and weather endpoint updates. We’ve curated removal requests from people who wanted to unpublish their apps. And it has new versions of old apps, and brand new apps from the two hackathons we’ve run! All of these things take time and money. | | |
| ▲ | modeless 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | None of that is included in their statement that "we’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on storing and hosting the data". If they meant that they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on building a dev portal, patching apps, and the other stuff you mention, they should have said that instead of "storing and hosting the data". | | |
| ▲ | johnmaguire 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are choosing a very literal interpretation, which is fine, if you think it is useful. To me, it looks disingenuous and irrelevant. The hosting and storage of that data would have been pointless without this additional development. And arguably, the app store development _is_ part of hosting it. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | eptcyka 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Cool, it is imperative those services are not operated at a loss. If you choose to do charity, you best make peace with the fact that you will never get either the time nor the money back. | | |
| ▲ | johnmaguire 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think they were operating as a charity - they were charging for the features that cost them money to provide... that's how they spent the aforementioned money. They funded some software development, they paid hosting bills, and they paid third party services for weather data, etc. | | |
| ▲ | eptcyka 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So they cashflowed the services they provided. And they’re not hunderds of thousands of dollars out of pocket on this, right? So what are they complaining about? Are they worried about losing their revenue stream or what? | | |
| ▲ | johnmaguire 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This thread started with OP calling Pebble rentseeking and used the subscription services as an example. I replied to point out that the subscription fees were used to fund services and development - they weren't profit. Then the thread went off the rails with some claiming that spending money is proof that Rebble is incompetent and others claiming that they shouldn't be whining about spending money (which they weren't) and I'm no longer clear what point you are trying to make. Stated elsewhere in thread, I believe the primary concern is that Rebble will import the data into a separate, closed app store owned by Pebble, which Pebble will lock Rebble out of (i.e. block scraping and refuse to release this data), and then if Pebble goes bust again, Rebble is left with less than they started with. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | quantumwoke 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Developer time? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | infotainment an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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. |
