Stories with Tag Smartwatch

• Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-18 16:23:21

  Verbose tl;dr

  Apple's imposed limitations hinder the Pebble smartwatch's functionality on iPhones. Features like interactive notifications, sending canned replies, and using the microphone for dictation or voice notes are blocked by Apple's restrictive APIs. While Pebble can display notifications, users can't interact with them directly from the watch, forcing them to pull out their iPhones. This limited integration significantly diminishes the Pebble's usability and convenience for iPhone users, compared to the Apple Watch which enjoys full access to iOS features. The author argues that these restrictions are intentionally imposed by Apple to stifle competition and promote their own smartwatch.

  The blog post by Eric Migicovsky, titled "Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones," details a series of frustrating limitations imposed by Apple that hinder the Pebble smartwatch's functionality when paired with an iPhone. Migicovsky, the founder of Pebble, articulates his grievances, outlining how these restrictions deliberately cripple the user experience and ultimately stifle innovation in the smartwatch ecosystem.

  He begins by establishing the inherent limitations present in all third-party smartwatches compared to the Apple Watch, acknowledging the restricted access to certain iOS features that Apple reserves for its own product. However, he goes further, arguing that Apple goes beyond simply prioritizing its own hardware. He claims Apple actively hinders the Pebble's ability to perform functions that are technically feasible and beneficial to users, even if those functions are already available to the Apple Watch.

  Migicovsky provides several specific examples of these limitations. He highlights the inability of third-party watches to reply to iMessages using canned responses, voice dictation, or emojis, despite the Apple Watch having this capability. He also points to the arbitrary restriction preventing third-party watches from sending SMS messages, even though the necessary APIs are available and utilized by other Bluetooth accessories like car kits. Further adding to the list of grievances, he notes the limited interaction permitted with notifications, such as the inability to take actions directly from the watch, like deleting emails or dismissing reminders, a feature again readily available on the Apple Watch. He also mentions the restriction on background access, which severely impacts the performance of fitness tracking and other real-time data synchronization features, forcing users to manually open the Pebble app to refresh data, a cumbersome and counterintuitive process.

  Migicovsky argues that these limitations are not technical in nature, but rather deliberate choices made by Apple to give its own product an unfair advantage in the market. He posits that by crippling the functionality of competing smartwatches, Apple artificially inflates the value proposition of the Apple Watch, forcing consumers to choose their product over superior alternatives, solely due to artificial limitations imposed on the competition. He concludes by expressing his frustration and disappointment with Apple's approach, arguing that it ultimately harms consumers by limiting choice and hindering the progress of smartwatch technology as a whole. He implies that a more open and collaborative approach would benefit the entire ecosystem, fostering innovation and allowing developers to create truly compelling experiences for all users, regardless of their chosen hardware platform.

  • Apple
  • Pebble
  • iPhone
  • Smartwatch
  • iOS
  • Integration
  • Restrictions
  • connectivity
  • Wearables
  • Technology
  • Mobile
  • Software
  • Hardware

  Summary of Comments ( 693 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43401245

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that Apple intentionally crippled Pebble's functionality on iOS. Several users share anecdotes of frustrating limitations, like the inability to reply to messages or use location services effectively. Some point out that Apple's MFi program, while ostensibly about quality control, serves as a gatekeeping mechanism to stifle competition. Others discuss the inherent tension between a closed ecosystem like Apple's and open platforms, noting that Apple prioritizes its own products and services, even if it means a degraded experience for users of third-party devices. A few commenters suggest the limitations are technically unavoidable, but this view is largely dismissed by others who cite examples of better integration on Android. There's also cynicism about Apple's purported security and privacy concerns, with some suggesting these are merely pretexts for anti-competitive behavior.

  The Hacker News post titled "Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones" (linking to an article on ericmigi.com) has generated a moderate number of comments, largely focusing on Apple's historical approach to third-party app integration and the motivations behind it.

  Several commenters echo the sentiment of the original article, highlighting Apple's tendency to initially restrict third-party functionalities and later implement similar features themselves. One commenter suggests this pattern demonstrates Apple's strategy of letting others explore the market and then incorporating successful features into their own ecosystem, sometimes even acquiring the pioneering companies. Another user mentions that Apple likely holds back third-party integrations to maintain a tight control over the user experience and ensure a consistent, polished feel across their devices. This control, they argue, allows Apple to refine the feature before broader adoption, preventing a fragmented user experience with potentially buggy implementations from third-party developers.

  Another line of discussion revolves around the specific limitations imposed on the Pebble smartwatch. Commenters mention restrictions on replying to notifications and accessing certain iPhone APIs. They speculate that Apple's tight control over notifications stems from security concerns and a desire to protect users from malicious apps. This control is also seen as a way for Apple to maintain its platform's value proposition, keeping users within their ecosystem.

  One commenter offers a slightly different perspective, arguing that Apple's restrictiveness is not necessarily malicious but rather a result of prioritizing their own hardware and software development. They suggest Apple simply lacks the resources to thoroughly vet and support every potential third-party integration, leading them to focus on their own products and services.

  A few commenters share personal anecdotes about their experiences with Pebble and other smartwatches on iOS, illustrating the practical implications of Apple's limitations. They express frustration with the inability to fully utilize their smartwatches due to these restrictions.

  Finally, some commenters mention alternative approaches Pebble could have taken, such as developing their own app store or focusing on Android integration. However, these suggestions are met with counterarguments pointing out the challenges and limitations of such alternatives, like the smaller market share of Android users at the time and the difficulties of competing with Apple's established app ecosystem.

  Overall, the comments section reflects a general understanding of Apple's strategy while also acknowledging the frustrations of users and developers seeking deeper integration with iOS. The most compelling comments provide nuanced perspectives on the motivations behind Apple's approach, balancing arguments about user experience, security, and business strategy.

• Two new PebbleOS watches

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-18 15:59:27

  Verbose tl;dr

  Eric Migicovsky, founder of Pebble, announced two new open-source PebbleOS watches: the Pebble Time mist and Pebble Time frost. These watches utilize existing Pebble Time hardware but feature new, community-designed watchfaces and updated firmware based on the RebbleOS continuation project. They represent a renewed effort to revitalize the Pebble ecosystem by offering a polished software experience on proven hardware. The mist and frost differ primarily in their casing colors (grey and white, respectively) and include new packaging and accessories like colorful silicone bands. Pre-orders are open with shipping expected in early 2024.

  Eric Migicovsky, the founder of Pebble, a company formerly renowned for its smartwatches, has unveiled two new timepieces powered by the open-source PebbleOS, continuing the legacy of the defunct brand. These watches, named the Pebble Cosmos Engage and the Pebble Time Will Return, are not manufactured by the original Pebble company, but rather represent a collaborative effort within the dedicated Pebble community, specifically by a manufacturer based in Hong Kong leveraging the open-source nature of the PebbleOS platform.

  The Pebble Cosmos Engage, described as an "all-new" device, boasts a circular display reminiscent of traditional watch aesthetics, breaking from the signature square design of previous Pebble models. It features modern advancements such as heart rate monitoring, blood pressure tracking, and sleep monitoring, catering to health-conscious users. Furthermore, it incorporates contemporary conveniences like Bluetooth calling and NFC (Near Field Communication) for contactless payments. Powered by a Realtek processor and running a version of FreeRTOS customized for PebbleOS, the Cosmos Engage promises an extended battery life, aiming to alleviate a common concern with smartwatches. A variety of watch faces are available to personalize the user experience.

  In contrast, the Pebble Time Will Return, as the name suggests, serves as a nostalgic homage to the classic Pebble Time smartwatch. Maintaining the iconic square display and overall design language of the original, this model evokes a sense of familiarity for long-time Pebble enthusiasts. While embracing the retro aesthetics, the Time Will Return does incorporate some modern upgrades, including a heart rate sensor and a blood oxygen monitor. However, it intentionally forgoes features like NFC and Bluetooth calling, seemingly prioritizing a purist experience that focuses on the core functionalities of a smartwatch.

  Both watches utilize the Rebble Web Services, a community-driven initiative that has kept the Pebble ecosystem alive by providing essential cloud services after the official shutdown by Fitbit, the company that acquired Pebble. This allows for continued functionality, including app installations and notifications, ensuring the longevity and continued utility of these newly released PebbleOS watches. The blog post positions these watches as not just timepieces but as a continuation of the Pebble ethos, driven by a passionate community dedicated to preserving and extending the life of the platform.

  • Pebble
  • PebbleOS
  • Smartwatch
  • Wearables
  • Watches
  • new product
  • Product Announcement
  • Technology
  • Consumer Electronics

  Summary of Comments ( 336 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43400989

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters express excitement and nostalgia for Pebble, with several lamenting its demise and wishing the new watches were real. Some discuss the challenges of building and maintaining a hardware startup, especially in the competitive smartwatch market. Others analyze the design of the proposed watches, praising the return to physical buttons and expressing preferences for different features like e-paper displays. Several commenters offer technical insights, discussing the potential for using existing hardware components and open-source software like FreeRTOS to create a similar product. A few share their personal experiences with Pebble and its unique community. There's also a thread about the potential market for such a device, with some arguing there's still demand for a simple, battery-efficient smartwatch.

  The Hacker News post "Two new PebbleOS watches" (linking to an article about two new Pebble-inspired smartwatch projects) generated a moderate discussion with 16 comments. Several commenters expressed nostalgia for Pebble and lamented its demise, with one user describing their Pebble Time Steel as "still the best smartwatch I ever owned." This sentiment was echoed by others who appreciated Pebble's simplicity, long battery life, and e-paper display.

  Some commenters focused on the technical aspects of the new watches, particularly the use of the RP2040 microcontroller. They discussed the chip's capabilities, its suitability for wearable devices, and the challenges of achieving acceptable battery life with it. One user pointed out the power consumption difference between e-paper and LCD displays, noting that while the RP2040 can drive a color LCD, it might struggle to achieve multi-day battery life.

  There was a discussion about the open-source nature of the projects and the potential for community involvement. Commenters expressed interest in contributing to the firmware development and customizing the watch faces. One commenter specifically asked about the possibility of adding offline maps to the watch.

  Several comments directly addressed the challenges faced by the new watch projects, including competition from established smartwatch brands like Apple and Garmin, and the difficulty of replicating the seamless software and hardware integration that Pebble achieved. One user raised the issue of app support, questioning whether these new watches could offer a compelling ecosystem of apps and services.

  Finally, there were some comments about the aesthetics of the new watches. While acknowledging the functional design, some users expressed a preference for the more refined look of the original Pebble watches. One comment humorously suggested the developer should "embrace the playful, toy-like aesthetic" of the original Pebble.

  Overall, the comments reflect a mix of excitement, nostalgia, and pragmatic concern for the future of these Pebble-inspired projects. While there's clear enthusiasm for a return to the Pebble ethos, many commenters acknowledge the significant hurdles these projects face in a competitive smartwatch market.

• Dear Mr. Vice President, Please Take Off Your Apple Watch

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-09 11:29:35

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post argues that Vice President Kamala Harris should not wear her Apple Watch, citing security risks. It contends that smartwatches, particularly those connected to cell networks, are vulnerable to hacking and could be exploited to eavesdrop on sensitive conversations or track her location. The author emphasizes the potential for foreign intelligence agencies to target such devices, especially given the Vice President's access to classified information. While acknowledging the convenience and health-tracking benefits, the post concludes that the security risks outweigh any advantages, suggesting a traditional mechanical watch as a safer alternative.

  In a recent blog post titled "Dear Mr. Vice President, Please Take Off Your Apple Watch," published on the website Watches of Espionage, the author expresses deep concern regarding Vice President JD Vance's continued public use of an Apple Watch, particularly given his access to sensitive government information and his involvement in classified briefings. The author meticulously details the potential security risks associated with wearing such a device, emphasizing its inherent vulnerability to hacking and surveillance. Specifically, the post highlights the possibility of foreign intelligence agencies exploiting the Apple Watch's connectivity to intercept confidential conversations, access classified documents via photographed screens, or even track the Vice President's location and movements.

  The author elaborates on the advanced technological capabilities of nation-state actors, suggesting that the security protocols employed by Apple, while robust for the average consumer, are likely insufficient to withstand the sophisticated attacks these entities are capable of launching. The piece underscores the inherent paradox of relying on security measures provided by a private company when dealing with matters of national security, arguing that such reliance creates an unnecessary vulnerability that can be easily exploited by adversarial governments. Further, the post draws parallels to historical instances of espionage and technological vulnerabilities, illustrating how seemingly innocuous devices can become tools for compromise in the hands of skilled adversaries.

  The author acknowledges the convenience and ubiquity of smartwatches in modern society but vehemently argues that the potential security risks far outweigh the benefits, especially for someone in the Vice President's position. The post concludes with a direct plea to Mr. Vance to prioritize national security by relinquishing his Apple Watch and opting for more secure alternatives, ultimately suggesting a return to traditional, non-connected timepieces as a prudent and necessary measure to safeguard sensitive information and protect the interests of the United States. The overall tone of the piece is one of urgent concern, emphasizing the gravity of the potential security breach and the necessity of immediate action to mitigate the identified risks.

  • Apple Watch
  • JD Vance
  • Vice President
  • Smartwatch
  • Security Risks
  • Intelligence
  • espionage
  • privacy
  • Wearable Tech
  • National Security
  • Government
  • Politics
  • Technology
  • Cybersecurity

  Summary of Comments ( 12 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42990000

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN users generally agree with the premise that smartwatches pose security risks, particularly for someone in Vance's position. Several commenters point out the potential for exploitation via the microphone, GPS tracking, and even seemingly innocuous features like the heart rate monitor. Some suggest Vance should switch to a dumb watch or none at all, while others recommend more secure alternatives like purpose-built government devices or even GrapheneOS-based phones paired with a dumb watch. A few discuss the broader implications of always-on listening devices and the erosion of privacy in general. Some skepticism is expressed about the likelihood of Vance actually changing his behavior based on the article.

  The Hacker News post "Dear Mr. Vice President, Please Take Off Your Apple Watch" sparked a discussion with several comments focusing on the security implications of wearing smartwatches, particularly for government officials.

  Several commenters highlighted the potential vulnerabilities of smartwatches to hacking and surveillance. One user pointed out that any device connected to a network is susceptible to compromise, emphasizing that smartwatches, with their microphones and data collection capabilities, pose a significant risk. This sentiment was echoed by another who mentioned the possibility of adversaries exploiting vulnerabilities to eavesdrop on conversations or access sensitive information. The potential for such devices to be turned into listening devices was a recurring theme.

  The discussion extended beyond just smartwatches to the broader issue of personal device security. Some commenters argued that the focus on smartwatches was misplaced, suggesting that mobile phones present a far greater security risk due to their wider range of functionalities and data storage. Others noted the irony of focusing on the Vice President's Apple Watch when other, potentially more vulnerable, technologies are used within government circles.

  One compelling comment suggested that the real issue wasn't the specific device but rather the lack of robust security protocols and awareness. They argued that even seemingly innocuous devices could be compromised if proper security measures aren't implemented and followed.

  A few users expressed skepticism about the article's premise, questioning the likelihood of a targeted attack against the Vice President through his Apple Watch. They suggested that other attack vectors might be more appealing to adversaries.

  Finally, several comments touched on the practicality and cultural acceptance of such security measures. Some questioned the feasibility of government officials completely abstaining from using smart technology, while others emphasized the importance of balancing security concerns with the benefits and convenience these devices offer. The thread also briefly touched on the broader implications of ubiquitous surveillance in modern society.

• Building a T1D smartwatch for my son from scratch

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-28 16:33:32

  Verbose tl;dr

  Motivated by the lack of a suitable smartwatch solution for managing his son's Type 1 diabetes, a father embarked on building a custom smartwatch from scratch. Using off-the-shelf hardware components like a PineTime smartwatch and a Nightscout-compatible continuous glucose monitor (CGM), he developed software to display real-time blood glucose data directly on the watch face. This DIY project aimed to provide a discreet and readily accessible way for his son to monitor his blood sugar levels, addressing concerns like bulky existing solutions and social stigma associated with medical devices. The resulting smartwatch displays glucose levels, trend arrows, and alerts for high or low readings, offering a more user-friendly and age-appropriate interface than traditional diabetes management tools.

  Driven by the deeply personal need to enhance his son's safety and management of Type 1 Diabetes (T1D), Andrew Childs embarked on a remarkable journey of engineering a custom-made smartwatch. His son, newly diagnosed, relied on a Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) and an Omnipod insulin pump, technologies that offered significant advancements in diabetes management, but lacked a crucial element: readily accessible and discreet glucose level readings for a child. Existing smartwatches, while capable of displaying CGM data, were deemed unsuitable due to their complexity, size, and potential distractions for a young user.

  Childs's primary objective was to create a simple, single-purpose device focused solely on displaying blood glucose levels. He prioritized legibility, robustness, and a user interface specifically designed for a child. Leveraging his expertise in software and hardware development, he meticulously documented his process, starting with the selection of appropriate hardware components. This included a small, low-power ESP32 microcontroller, a compact OLED display screen chosen for its clarity and energy efficiency, and a robust battery to ensure longevity.

  The intricate process involved not only hardware assembly but also the development of custom software to interface with the Dexcom G6 via Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) and interpret its data. This necessitated meticulous reverse-engineering of the Dexcom G6's communication protocols, a complex undertaking that required significant time and effort. Childs meticulously detailed his methodology, including the challenges encountered and solutions implemented. He also prioritized power optimization to maximize the watch's battery life, a critical consideration for a device intended for continuous use.

  The software development included designing a straightforward user interface tailored to his son's needs, displaying glucose values in a large, easily readable font. Furthermore, he incorporated color-coded alerts to visually indicate high and low glucose levels, providing an immediate and intuitive understanding of the data. The final product, housed in a 3D-printed case designed for comfort and durability, represented a significant achievement in personalized medical technology.

  Childs's project underscored the power of combining personal motivation with technical expertise to address a specific need. His detailed account of the design and development process serves not only as a testament to his ingenuity but also as a valuable resource for others interested in exploring similar solutions. This endeavor demonstrates the potential for individuals to create tailored technological interventions that improve the lives of those living with chronic conditions like T1D. His work highlights the evolving landscape of personalized healthcare and the empowering role that technology can play in managing complex medical needs, particularly for children.

  • DIY
  • Smartwatch
  • T1D
  • Type 1 Diabetes
  • Diabetes Management
  • Open Source
  • Hardware
  • Software
  • parenting
  • Child Health
  • Wearable Technology
  • Electronics
  • Microcontroller
  • Sensor
  • Bluetooth
  • Mobile App
  • Data Visualization
  • Real-Time Monitoring
  • Glucose Monitoring

  Summary of Comments ( 6 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42854291

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News commenters largely praised the author's dedication and ingenuity in creating a smartwatch for his son with Type 1 diabetes. Several expressed admiration for his willingness to dive into hardware and software development to address a specific need. Some discussed the challenges of closed-loop systems and the potential benefits and risks of DIY medical devices. A few commenters with diabetes shared their personal experiences and offered suggestions for improvement, such as incorporating existing open-source projects or considering different hardware platforms. Others raised concerns about the regulatory hurdles and safety implications of using a homemade device for managing a serious medical condition. There was also some discussion about the potential for commercializing the project.

  The Hacker News post "Building a T1D smartwatch for my son from scratch" generated a substantial discussion with 29 comments. Many commenters expressed admiration for the author's dedication and ingenuity in creating a custom solution for managing his son's Type 1 diabetes.

  Several commenters focused on the complexities and frustrations of dealing with existing diabetes technology. One user shared their personal experiences with closed-loop systems, highlighting the challenges of achieving optimal glucose control and the constant need for calibration and adjustments. They appreciated the author's proactive approach to building a tailored solution. Another commenter echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the limitations of current commercial offerings and the burden placed on users, particularly children.

  Some commenters raised concerns about the project's safety and regulatory aspects. One user questioned the implications of relying on a self-built system for such a critical health condition and suggested exploring collaboration with medical professionals. Another commenter inquired about the device's accuracy and reliability, emphasizing the importance of rigorous testing and validation.

  A few commenters offered technical suggestions and resources. One commenter mentioned alternative hardware platforms that might be suitable for the project. Another commenter shared a link to a relevant open-source project, potentially offering valuable insights and code examples.

  Several users praised the open-source nature of the project, expressing hope that it could benefit other individuals with Type 1 diabetes. They appreciated the author's willingness to share their work and contribute to the community.

  Some comments delved into the specific technical details of the project, discussing aspects such as data processing, algorithm design, and user interface development. These comments demonstrated a genuine interest in the project's technical implementation and offered valuable feedback to the author.

  Overall, the comments reflect a mix of admiration, concern, and technical curiosity. The compelling comments highlight the challenges of managing Type 1 diabetes, the potential benefits of customized solutions, and the importance of collaboration and open-source development in addressing complex health problems. They also underscore the need for thorough testing and validation to ensure the safety and reliability of such systems.

• We're bringing Pebble back

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-27 20:11:19

  Verbose tl;dr

  The original Pebble smartwatch ecosystem is being revived through a community-driven effort called Rebble. Existing Pebble watches will continue to function with existing apps and features, thanks to recovered server infrastructure and ongoing community development. Going forward, Rebble aims to enhance the Pebble experience with improvements like bug fixes, new watchfaces, and expanded app compatibility with modern phone operating systems. They are also exploring the possibility of manufacturing new hardware in the future.

  The erstwhile purveyors of the much-beloved Pebble smartwatch, a device that captured the hearts of many with its innovative blend of functionality and minimalist design, have proclaimed their intention to resurrect the platform, albeit in a novel and evolved form. This revitalization, dubbed "Pebble 2.0" by the community, seeks to recapture the spirit of the original Pebble while embracing the advancements in technology that have transpired since its unfortunate demise. The core tenets of this resurgence are predicated upon ensuring the enduring functionality of existing Pebble devices, a promise that extends to both the hardware itself and the associated mobile applications. This commitment to backward compatibility represents a significant boon for the dedicated community of Pebble users who have remained steadfast in their allegiance to the platform.

  Further elaborating on this commitment, the architects of this revival have pledged to open the floodgates of software development, liberating the Pebble ecosystem to the ingenuity of the broader community. This open-source initiative will empower developers, both seasoned and nascent, to contribute to the platform's evolution, breathing new life into the aging yet resilient operating system. This democratization of software development is expected to yield a plethora of new features, applications, and enhancements, ensuring the continued relevance of Pebble devices in an increasingly competitive landscape.

  Moreover, this revival extends beyond mere software preservation. The announcement heralds the introduction of new hardware, though details remain tantalizingly scarce. This forthcoming hardware, while shrouded in an aura of mystery, promises to embody the spirit of the original Pebble while incorporating modern technological advancements, potentially bridging the gap between the classic Pebble experience and the contemporary smartwatch paradigm. This new hardware, when eventually unveiled, is poised to reignite the passion of the Pebble faithful and potentially attract a new generation of users to the revitalized platform.

  In essence, this is not merely a resuscitation, but a reimagining of the Pebble ecosystem. It is a testament to the enduring appeal of the platform and a commitment to the community that has kept the spirit of Pebble alive. This initiative, while still in its nascent stages, holds the promise of a vibrant future for Pebble, a future built upon the foundations of its past while embracing the possibilities of tomorrow.

  • Pebble
  • Smartwatch
  • Wearables
  • Rebble
  • Firmware
  • Open Source
  • Community
  • Software
  • Hardware
  • WatchOS
  • Retro Tech
  • Consumer Electronics

  Summary of Comments ( 192 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42845091

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users reacted to the "Pebble back" announcement with a mix of excitement and skepticism. Many expressed nostalgia for their old Pebbles and hoped for a true revival of the platform, including app support and existing watch functionality. Several commenters questioned the open-source nature of the project, given the reliance on a closed-source phone app and potential server dependencies. Concerns were raised about battery life compared to modern smartwatches, and some users expressed interest in alternative open-source smartwatch projects like AsteroidOS and Bangle.js. Others debated the feasibility of reviving the app ecosystem and questioned the long-term viability of the project given the limited resources of the Rebble team. Finally, some users simply expressed joy at the prospect of using their Pebbles again.

  The Hacker News post titled "We're bringing Pebble back" generated a significant amount of discussion, with many commenters expressing excitement and nostalgia for the defunct smartwatch brand. A recurring theme is cautious optimism tempered by past disappointments.

  Several commenters recalled their positive experiences with Pebble watches, praising their simplicity, long battery life, and e-paper displays. They expressed hope that the revived project would recapture the essence of what made Pebble unique. Some specifically mentioned the desire for a modern e-paper smartwatch with week-long battery life, a feature largely absent from the current smartwatch market.

  Concerns were also raised about the "bring back" claim. Some questioned what exactly was being brought back, as the original Pebble hardware and servers are no longer functional. Commenters speculated about the possibility of community-driven firmware updates for existing Pebble watches, the development of new hardware compatible with existing Pebble apps, or even a completely new smartwatch inspired by the Pebble ethos. There was significant interest in understanding the technical details of the project and whether it would involve open-source components.

  Skepticism was present, with some commenters expressing doubt about the viability of the project given the competitive landscape and the resources required to develop and manufacture new hardware. Past experiences with other "revival" attempts in the tech world were cited, highlighting the challenges of recapturing a brand's former glory. Several users questioned the business model and the sustainability of relying solely on community contributions.

  Some commenters offered suggestions and feature requests, such as improved water resistance, better integration with existing smartphone ecosystems, and the inclusion of a heart rate monitor. Others inquired about the project's timeline and roadmap.

  Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of excitement, nostalgia, cautious optimism, and skepticism. While many are eager to see Pebble return in some form, they are also mindful of the challenges involved and the need for more concrete information about the project's scope and direction. Many seem hopeful that the team can deliver a product that lives up to the legacy of the original Pebble.

• Google open-sources the Pebble OS

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-27 20:09:09

  Verbose tl;dr

  Google has open-sourced the Pebble OS, including firmware, apps, developer tools, and watchfaces. This release, dubbed "Pebble.js," allows developers and enthusiasts to explore and tinker with the code that powered these iconic smartwatches. The repository provides access to the entire Pebble software ecosystem, enabling potential revival or adaptation of the platform for other devices and purposes. While official support from Google is limited, the open-source nature of the project invites community contributions and future development.

  In a momentous announcement on January 9, 2025, Google unveiled the open-sourcing of the Pebble OS, a significant operating system that once powered the popular Pebble line of smartwatches. This decision grants developers, enthusiasts, and the wider community unprecedented access to the underlying codebase that drove these innovative wearable devices. The blog post, titled "See the code that powered Pebble smartwatches," details the rationale and implications of this release.

  Google acquired Fitbit, the company that had previously acquired Pebble, and acknowledges the enduring legacy and dedicated community that surrounded Pebble smartwatches. Recognizing the desire among developers to delve into the inner workings of the Pebble OS, Google has meticulously prepared the code for public release. This involved updating the build system to utilize contemporary tools and libraries, ensuring compatibility with modern development environments. They also replaced proprietary components with open-source alternatives where necessary to facilitate a fully open and accessible codebase. This modernization effort ensures that developers will encounter a less arduous path to understanding, building, and potentially extending the Pebble OS.

  The open-sourced project encompasses the core operating system, the firmware for various Pebble watch models, and the accompanying SDK (Software Development Kit). This comprehensive release allows developers to explore every facet of the Pebble ecosystem, from the low-level system functions to the user interface elements. While full functionality is not guaranteed due to the reliance on previously closed-source services that are no longer operational, the core functionality and architecture of the OS are preserved.

  Google emphasizes that this open-sourcing is primarily an archival effort, aimed at preserving the technological legacy of Pebble smartwatches. They are not actively developing or supporting the platform. However, the release allows the community to potentially maintain and even extend the OS for existing hardware. The code is being released under the Apache License 2.0, a permissive license that allows for broad usage and modification.

  The blog post concludes by directing interested parties to the GitHub repository where the Pebble OS code now resides. This repository serves as the central hub for accessing the code, documentation, and any further information related to the open-source project. Google expresses hope that the release will inspire innovation and perhaps even breathe new life into the Pebble ecosystem, albeit in a community-driven capacity.

  • Google
  • Pebble
  • Open Source
  • Wear OS
  • Smartwatch
  • Operating System
  • Firmware
  • Software
  • Technology
  • Pebble OS
  • Open-sourcing

  Summary of Comments ( 90 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42845070

  Verbose tl;dr

  The Hacker News comments express excitement about Google open-sourcing the Pebble OS, with many reminiscing about their fondness for the now-defunct smartwatches. Several commenters anticipate tinkering with the newly released code and exploring potential uses, like repurposing it for other wearables or integrating it with existing projects. Some discuss the technical aspects of the OS and speculate about the motivations behind Google's decision, suggesting it could be a move to preserve Pebble's legacy, foster community development, or potentially even lay the groundwork for future wearable projects. A few commenters express a degree of disappointment that the release doesn't include all aspects of the Pebble ecosystem, such as the mobile apps or cloud services. There's also a recurring theme of gratitude towards Google for making the source code available, acknowledging the significance of this move for the Pebble community and wearable technology enthusiasts.

  The Hacker News post "Google open-sources the Pebble OS" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42845070) generated a moderate number of comments discussing various aspects of the Pebble smartwatch and its newly open-sourced operating system.

  Several commenters expressed nostalgia for their Pebble devices, praising their simplicity, long battery life, and e-paper displays. They reminisced about the active Pebble community and lamented the demise of the company after its acquisition by Fitbit. Some users expressed hope that the open-sourcing of the OS might lead to a community revival and potential future development.

  A few comments focused on the technical aspects of the Pebble OS, highlighting its resource efficiency, suitability for low-power hardware, and the clever ways it managed to deliver functionality despite hardware limitations. The use of JavaScript for app development was also mentioned, with some appreciating its accessibility and others expressing concerns about performance.

  Some discussion revolved around the potential uses for the open-sourced codebase. Suggestions included repurposing it for other wearable devices, learning from its efficient design, and potentially even creating new Pebble-like watches. However, the practical challenges of reviving the platform, such as the lack of app store infrastructure and the availability of suitable hardware, were also acknowledged.

  A couple of commenters questioned the timing of Google's decision to open-source the OS, speculating about potential motivations, including public relations benefits and the possibility of leveraging the code for other Google projects.

  One particularly compelling comment thread explored the impact of Fitbit's acquisition of Pebble on the smartwatch market. Some argued that Fitbit effectively killed a promising competitor and stifled innovation, while others defended Fitbit's actions, citing the challenging market dynamics and the inherent difficulties of competing with larger players like Apple and Google.

  Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of nostalgia for the Pebble, appreciation for its technical achievements, and cautious optimism about the potential impact of open-sourcing its OS. While some envision a community-driven revival of the platform, others remain skeptical about its long-term prospects given the practical challenges involved.

• The future of Rebble

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-27 20:03:22

  Verbose tl;dr

  Rebble, the community-driven effort to keep Pebble smartwatches alive after Fitbit discontinued services, has announced its transition to a fully open-source platform. This means the Rebble web services, mobile apps, and firmware will all be open-sourced, allowing the community to fully control and sustain the platform indefinitely. While current services will remain operational, this shift empowers developers to contribute, adapt, and ensure the long-term viability of Rebble, freeing it from reliance on specific individuals or resources. This represents a move towards greater community ownership and collaborative development for the continued support of Pebble smartwatches.

  The Rebble Alliance, a community-driven initiative dedicated to preserving the functionality of Pebble smartwatches, has outlined its long-term vision and plans for the future in a comprehensive blog post. The post acknowledges the inherent challenges of maintaining a service for a discontinued product line, particularly given the increasing obsolescence of the original Pebble server infrastructure. To address these challenges, Rebble is focusing on a multi-pronged strategy aimed at ensuring the longevity and continued usability of Pebble devices.

  A key element of this strategy is the development of a fully-fledged, open-source server implementation known as the "Rebble OS Server." This project aims to replace the reliance on legacy Pebble services with a modern, community-maintained alternative. The transition to this new server infrastructure is not without its complexities and requires meticulous planning and execution. Rebble is committed to a careful, phased rollout of the Rebble OS Server, prioritizing the preservation of existing functionalities like app installations, notifications, weather data, and voice dictation. While the ultimate goal is complete feature parity with the original Pebble services, the transition process will likely involve periods of limited functionality as specific services are migrated and stabilized.

  In addition to server-side developments, Rebble is exploring avenues for enhancing the user experience on the watch itself. This includes ongoing efforts to improve the existing Rebble app store and potentially developing new software features for Pebble devices. The post emphasizes the importance of community involvement in shaping the future of Rebble, encouraging contributions from developers, designers, and other passionate individuals.

  Furthermore, the post addresses the financial sustainability of the Rebble Alliance. While the organization has primarily relied on donations, the increasing costs associated with server maintenance necessitate a shift towards a more sustainable financial model. Rebble is actively exploring various options to ensure its long-term viability, aiming to balance the need for financial stability with the community-driven ethos of the project. The overarching message is one of cautious optimism, recognizing the challenges ahead while reaffirming a strong commitment to the continued support and enhancement of the Pebble ecosystem. The Rebble Alliance remains dedicated to providing a vibrant and functional platform for Pebble users, striving to extend the lifespan of these beloved devices for as long as possible.

  • Rebble
  • Pebble
  • Smartwatch
  • Wear OS
  • Wearables
  • Software
  • Open Source
  • Community
  • Future of Technology
  • Product Roadmap

  Summary of Comments ( 18 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42845017

  Verbose tl;dr

  The Hacker News comments express cautious optimism about Rebble's future, acknowledging the challenges of maintaining a community-driven alternative for a niche product like Pebble. Several users praise the Rebble team's dedication and ingenuity in keeping the platform alive this long. Some express concern over the long-term viability without official support and question the eventual hardware limitations. Others discuss potential solutions like using existing smartwatches with a Pebble-like OS, or even designing new Pebble-inspired hardware. The overall sentiment leans towards hoping for Rebble's continued success while recognizing the significant hurdles ahead. A few users reflect nostalgically on their positive experiences with Pebble watches and the community surrounding them.

  The Hacker News post "The future of Rebble" (linking to a blog post about the future of the Rebble Web Services for Pebble smartwatches) has generated a number of comments discussing various aspects of the project and its future.

  Several commenters express their appreciation for Rebble and the work the team has done to keep their Pebble watches functional after Fitbit discontinued services. They highlight the longevity and usability of the Pebble devices, contrasting them with newer smartwatches they find less appealing or functional. Some share personal anecdotes about their continued use of Pebble watches, emphasizing the enduring appeal of their simplicity and efficiency.

  A key theme in the comments revolves around the sustainability of the Rebble project. Users inquire about the long-term financial viability of maintaining the services and express concern about potential future challenges. Discussions arise regarding subscription models, donation drives, and the balance between offering free services and ensuring the project's survival. Some users suggest exploring partnerships or alternative funding mechanisms to secure Rebble's future.

  Technical aspects of Rebble are also discussed. Commenters inquire about specific features, potential improvements, and the possibility of expanding functionality or supporting new devices. Some users express interest in contributing to the project's development, offering their skills and expertise. There are mentions of alternative operating systems for Pebble and the challenges involved in maintaining compatibility with existing hardware.

  Some commenters share their perspectives on the broader smartwatch landscape, comparing Pebble to other platforms and discussing the evolution of wearable technology. They reflect on the reasons for Pebble's success and lament its demise, while also acknowledging the limitations of the platform and the challenges of competing with larger tech companies.

  Overall, the comments section reflects a strong community of Pebble enthusiasts who remain dedicated to the platform and appreciate the efforts of the Rebble team. There's a mixture of optimism and concern about the future, coupled with a desire to contribute and ensure the continued functionality of these beloved devices. The discussions highlight the unique value proposition of Pebble and the enduring appeal of its minimalist approach to smartwatch functionality.