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