Pebble Watch software is now open source
ericmigi.com
ericmigi.com
Hardware is messy. IP licensing for sensors and radios is a nightmare. Getting a functional OS out with "only" a few binary blobs is a massive engineering and legal victory.
I'd rather have a working, 95% open ecosystem that I can actually hack on, than a 100% pure theoretical one that never ships. Kudos to Eric for navigating the legal minefield to make this happen.
> Another important note - some binary blobs and other non-free software components are used today in PebbleOS and the Pebble mobile app (ex: the heart rate sensor on PT2 , Memfault library, and others). Optional non-free web services, like Wispr-flow API speech recognizer, are also used. These non-free software components are not required - you can compile and run Pebble watch software without them. This will always be the case. More non-free software components may appear in our software in the future. The core Pebble watch software stack (everything you need to use your Pebble watch) will always be open source.
example, could one create a "VM" to run a virtual pebble watch without any of the firmware blobs? (I'm not saying that one exists today, just speaking theoretically, ala a virtual android environment).
Does that mean their software isn't open source? I'd argue no.
One could argue that trying to pass off the pebble watch itself as open source is perhaps "wrong" (but as you say, can debate the value of worrying about blobs), but I don't think that means the "pebble watch software" isn't open source as the title says.
Or better put, there's no legal restrictions on someone creating a "pebble competitor" using the pebble watch with different hardware (that doesn't depend on the blobs included for current hardware).
FOSS all the things so my freedoms are never restricted again, and I am happy to pay.
It is the *end user* who decides which feeds to trust, as it should be. And since it's built right into the app as a core concept, it doesn't take massive engineering effort to switch feeds if some sort of drama occurs.
[0] I'd normally call these repositories, but I've used Eric's term for consistency with the article.
I had heard of many smaller apps using Kotlin for their iOS app, but this may be the biggest all in multiplatform app I've seen. It would be awesome if there may eventually be support for writing Pebble apps in Kotlin.
In my cloud infrastructure work (C++), we have gotten lazy. We bloat our containers because 'RAM is cheap'. Seeing a system designed to fit into 1MB reminds me that performance engineering used to be about efficiency, not just throwing more hardware at the problem.
Embedded is definitely a fun balance of what we could do and how much we can do.
Now it would be great if we could move on to C++, Zig or Rust, instead of coding C like I did in the MS-DOS days, where I was already able to develop C++ applications within 640 KB limitations.
“Want to learn more about how we built the new app cross platform using Kotlin Multiplatform? Watch Steve’s presentation at Droidcon [1].”
Almost every tech company wants to continue the IBM "surrounded by blue" strategy, fencing customers into their "walled garden" surrounded by a Warren Buffet moat and blocking obsessively any competitor that wants to breach in. Google mandates that every Android application must be signed by developers verified by them, Microsoft demands that users open an account with them, ... and just don't get me started with AWS, Apple, John Deere, Nespresso, etc. Meanwhile, I fail to see any real contender in the smartphone arena.
But, in wearables, Pebble puts up a fight. The platform/product has proven resilient, mostly because of its users passion and commitment. It is more alive today than Fitbit, the company that bought and buried it.
And will only get stronger.
Now I'll be anxiously waiting for my PT2. It will be the 5th Pebble in my collection.
Cheers to Eric for bringing back pebble in the way that he has !
Pretty cool to see all 6 layers, paste layers, and adhesive layers as well. I've always wondered how the cake was made and if big projects do/could use KiCad. Seems like a lot more work relative to those Single Layer PCBs on YouTube for things like emulators and custom PCBs. Glad I now know for sure, that I can't do this.
You almost certainly could do it - obviously with some time investment. Getting multi layer PCBs made is surprisingly affordable now.
I encourage you to browse it, I found that while challenging, it does not seem unreachable to get to that level of proficiency in KiCad.
Though to be fair to OpenDevices, this is source code they don't have acces to either.
[1]: https://github.com/coredevices/pebbleos-nonfree/tree/57a94e2...
>Another important note - some binary blobs and other non-free software components are used today in PebbleOS and the Pebble mobile app (ex: the heart rate sensor on PT2 , Memfault library, and others). Optional non-free web services, like Wispr-flow API speech recognizer, are also used. These non-free software components are not required - you can compile and run Pebble watch software without them. This will always be the case. More non-free software components may appear in our software in the future. The core Pebble watch software stack (everything you need to use your Pebble watch) will always be open source.
100% should mean 100%
Main and Contrib has to obey DFSG guidelines, and there's an optional non-free repository which you can enable if you prefer.
Firmware is a gnarly can of worms though, and while I prefer 100% free firmware myself, companies are not brave enough to open that part of their ecosystem, yet, if ever.
NVIDIA does exactly what you said. Move everything to firmware and closed GL libraries, and open source a kernel module to facilitate communication. They even created different firmware versions to prevent open source drivers to use the whole card.
AMD did the inverse: They re-implemented a fully open driver from scratch, opened up the specs, made every part which they can make (legally) accessible, accessible, open sourced ROCm and send in packages to major distributions' (main / open source) repositories. Their firmware is closed source, but it's obtainable and doesn't require signatures to enable the card. They even clashed with HDMI forums to make a libre implementation of v2.1, but the forum basically threatened them.
Intel's graphics drivers are basically the same with AMD.
Broadcom / Intel / Realtek NICs work without their respective firmware blobs, yet their offloading capabilities are disabled. Either way, the drivers are completely open source and in the kernel mainline.
Same for most sound cards sans Creative Labs. I want to hit them with a foam cluebat so bad.
Logitech's all stuff works with open drivers. They are the primary contributor to V4L standard, standardize their webcam interfaces and provide drivers or help.
Do you have any examples in mind?
That sounds ominous.
I can understand not being able to remove non-free dependencies that were used previously, but that sounds like they intend to create new non-free components.
I tend to understand where this comes from. It's part business, part continuation of old customs and the way they did it and being able to control obsolescence to be able push new things to the market.
However, if the periphery of the software you put out is closed source, even though this periphery is optional, it's not fair or ethical to say it's 100% open source.
From my perspective, it can be said it's open core, and it's pretty fair, and acceptable in my case, but writing 100% Open Source* (*: 100% of the open part of the software stack, exceptions apply) is not fair game. It's misleading.
What bothers me is "100%" part of the open source claim. I personally like the Debian model a lot. It's DFSG compliant by default, and if non-free software is needed, it's attainable. Debian is "as Free as you want, as closed as you need".
I see, new Pebble follows the same model, and it's perfectly fine, but branding it as 100% Open Source is not.
I'll not discuss hardware companies. It's a can of worms that doesn't belong to that reply. Let's say while I understand some of their reservations, these reservation doesn't change that they're greedy and selfish (beyond acceptable limits).
Like none of the Pinephone, Librem, Framework laptops are "open-source" to the bone.
So given that the word doesn't really apply to hardware, I believe they used it correctly (100% means the set of things where it makes sense to be used) and are not misleading. In fact I strongly dislike some of the "open-hardware" marketing of some previously mentioned devices, when that is obviously false and misleading.
This likely would also mean that it can't be flashed, so if you care about future maintainability, this is also a negative -- it can not be updated/fixed in the future, which may or may not make sense depending on what part we are talking about.
But if there are some kind of signature validation then it gets even more complicated (like e.g. iphone screens knowing if they are from apple or not).
This is a "necessary but not sufficient" thing.
Precursor is the most open personal computing device that can be built currently.
Precursor goes far, but definitely not as far as currently possible.
As an aside, GNU Librephone aims to rectify that by reverse-engineering those blobs and develop their own firmware for baseband chips etc. But I am carefully optimistic about the success since it is a relatively new project and quite a moonshot, even though I would personally stand first in line to buy one if it would materialize.
The general sentiment is that you cannot trust code you did not write yourself and that we need to be able to trust the person who did, but you can form your own conclusions about how that fits into the modern tech landscape.
Full disclosure: am free software advocate.
For me, the open-source movement is about keeping my software and hardware in alignment with my values and security concerns. If there is a part of that "open-sourced" software that is closed to me, I have no way to evaluate that and determine if I want to use it. Yes, this imposes some extremely strict limitations about what I end up with in my projects, but I'm okay with this since it forces me to think differently about certain problems.
I also don't mind that other people use product with closed-source portions or whatever, and in fact, find some of them quite good. I'm a wearer of an original Pebble to this day, and I'm fine with knowing some proprietary libraries are needed to make it go. I didn't build it, I'm not hacking on it, it's just serving my meager smartwatch needs in this instance.
What I do mind is misappropriation of what I consider a clearly defined term. I am not sure why we haven't come up with another term to mean "partially open-sourced" yet (or have we, and I am just not aware of it?) but I think it's time we did so more discerning users can delineate between the two when making a decision about products to purchase or build.
> These non-free software components are not required - you can compile and run Pebble watch software without them. This will always be the case.
This seems like a reasonable balance. They're shipping default distributions with these blobs included, but you can remove them and run the literally completely purely open source version directly instead if you prefer (although it sounds like you'd notably lose heart rate tracking, along with speech recognition & similar).
And worst of all: They are incredibly cheap and don't want to spend any of their money on high quality products or services. Scream at every dollar they have to spend. "I'm better off with this hand-me-down computer that my sister gave me when her office job upgraded machines".
Trying to please FOSS people is like opening a five star budget restaurant for people with complicated allergies. You're going to deal with the worst of humanity and go broke in the process.
2. The people who require the "higher grades" of being open source are simply not a large enough market
3. Being open source is not a natural advantage of a product, in fact, it's more of a risk, liability, responsibility, and effort than being proprietary.
Hence, proprietary is the default.
Hell, lots of sensors/etc these days are running fairly complicated software that's totally opaque.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisquel
The simple statement that it's not 100% open source is not an attack on the effort. It needs to be said, because the blog entry's title is "Pebble Watch Software Is Now 100% Open Source".
Do you demand circuit schematics? Hardware description language source code for all the ICs? Does it matter if it’s a FPGA vs a custom IC? What about CAD files for the industrial design - some of that is ‘functional’ (camera lenses and antennas being obvious examples).
If you don’t require hardware description language source or circuit schematics, does your position change if it’s a microcontroller with firmware? The functionality could be outwardly identical to a fully ‘hardware’ IC or FPGA, down to pinout and timing (see, for example, the many projects ‘cloning’ obsolete and unavailable custom ICs with microcontrollers in the retrocomputing field).
And the ability to choose app repos is also a wonderful development. Nothing against Rebble at all, but more choices and more openness is always better!
* The companion app is now completely open source, ensuring that the community can continue supporting the watches if Core goes under.
* You can subscribe to multiple app stores while optionally paying for services, and Core will maintain their own store. This seems to placate Rebble so they can do their thing and provide their paid services.
Seems like very good steps forward overall.
This could get me back, though I’ll admit the appeal has gone down since I’ve realized how nice it is to create separation between me and my notifications.
I like the gamification and some notifications (today its 5 degrees colder than yesterday for example)
Doesn't address the multiple feed support for the app store, and seems to be calling Eric to action a few times, but it would be too much of a coincidence that these two posts come out so close to one another.
Slight correction, apparently Eric posting one of those WhatsApp screenshots was not okay with the person on the other side (who iirc is a rebble guy), who added that those grievances he had were taken out of context in the screenshot.
The pebble (or rebble?) subreddit had this in the comments if anyone wants to read more.
As always, the truth appears to lie somewhere in the middle, and while this does appear to be more of miscommunication than malice, it's a bit disappointing to me overall.
It sounds to me like Rebble (the board + community) should figure out what they want before trying to proceed, lest they further waste time and good-faith negotiating capital. like are they unhappy with the previous payment rate per user? or something else?
That is not a criticism of them nor is it surprising, their responsibility up to now has been to maintain a core set of open source software. A loosely structured control structure is entirely appropriate for that task. But it really does not work when instead of bringing one person representing the company to a negotiation, you have half a dozen people who all have their own thoughts and levels of interest and commitment, some of whom will resort to community action if they don't like something about the process.
From what they posted, it seems like they wanted more control over what Core was doing, deciding that the best way to do that was to try and hold the app store data hostage.
Now, with the Core app open sourced and multiple app store repos supported, Rebble's position will likely be greatly diminished from what it could have been if they had been satisfied with what they had. I guess in the end though, the outcome was a net win for everyone (fully open source apps), so it works out.
Many of them seem to think that PebbleOS was released just for them (they quote the Google press release), and so reading between the lines I really do think they feel at some level that code has been "stolen" from them. Which is ridiculous (and I said so) but if they think it's true then it explains their actions much more clearly than any other explanation I've found (or they've elucidated).
My best understanding (which I've extrapolated from what I've learned) is that they had all these plans of being a scrappy team who worked together on PebbleOS in their spare time, as friends, and Eric capitalising a company of paid developers has made all those plans redundant - so they've been powering through the five stages of grief in coming to terms with that while everyone else has been celebrating the return of Pebble.
If only! They trashed their reputation by lashing out at their own misapprehensions.
They went from “Core Devices to stealing and everything is terrible and we are making demands” to “Actually everything was fine all along oopsy sorry for the misunderstandings”…
https://www.ifixit.com/News/113620/the-pixel-watch-4-is-the-...
FTA: "We’re also making sure that our new watches are more repairable than old Pebble watches. The back cover of Pebble Time 2 is screwed in. You can remove the back cover and replace the battery."
So the battery of the Pebble Time 2 (the watch I bought to replace my Fossil HR Collider which replaced my orig. Pebble 2) is user serviceable. I had to open my Pebble 2 because my buttons were falling off. I bought a second hand donor (Pebble OC, since I ditched my broken Pebble OC at some point) and unfortunately I failed to succeed the transplantation of the buttons. Which made me very sad.
I also very much liked you could turn the radios off on the Pebble 2. The HR was useless though. But if I want a good quality of that, I'd go for Garmin or (if I were in the Apple ecosystem) an Apple Watch.
After Pebble went kaput, I got an Apple Watch through a work reward thing and honestly it’s been solid. I turned off a lot of notifications and mostly use it for things I really want to know, some light exercise tracking, time and weather.
(A lot of the original Pebbles were ugly too, but in a way that I personally found more appealingly utilitarian. Or maybe I'm just used to them.)
Will be fun to pick up one of these again and be able to hop back and forth between it and the PineTime! Great stuff, Eric and team.
This along with valve's hardware announcement is quite a shot at all the entreched hardware manufacturers.
> Realistically, at this time we’re forecasting that the majority of people will receive their PT2 in March and April.
If the factories close for 3 weeks for CNY, then why will the second batch arrive 2-3 months after the first batch?
When factories restart, not all of the workers who were working there before actually come back to work. Some of them stay in their hometowns or they get other jobs. This means that restarting the production line actually means retraining people on how to assemble the product. There is also an entire supply chain behind the assembly line that takes time to restart. Think of all the sub-components like plastics, metal components, etc. that need to be built at respective factories. It takes time to ship them to the primary factory for final assembly and test.
After the product gets assembled, there are several stages of testing, like gluing, environmental testing, final assembly test, and packaging, that take time as well. Then the product has to be shipped to the fulfillment center, packaged, labeled, and then shipped out. Each step time, and the process needs to completely re-start after CNY.
I was one of the pre-orderers that was offered either a refund or a white version and chose the refund because I really had my heart set on the black and don't want a color screen.
I'm also an OG Pebble enthusiast, although sadly my old one is long gone.
> Pebble 2 Duo is sold out! We are not making more.
https://ericmigi.com/blog/how-to-build-a-smartwatch-software...
But I've never done anything like this, so ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
It will take far more sophisticated micro-manufacturing (like 3d-printing but different tools handling more types of materials).
Get the jacket in your exact size with the best materials. Benefit from having incrementally improved from the original (for example under arm vent zipper angle improved). All of it unbranded or custom branded.
Seems hard to believe annual released, mass manufacturing will compete.
The designs themselves are often just bad. It is almost like consumers are punished for not spending enough with bad color options. (You can see this in running shoes as well)
Even if the right aesthetic and function is found, there's no real consideration of body type or shape, you get a few sizes to choose from.
I think big brands have consumers over a barrel today. When the design and materials assembly are solved, I think people will pay more to get the thing they want. And I think they're more likely to keep them longer as a result.
I received my Pebble 2 Duo about a month ago, and it is awesome. Nice job and thank you! I feel 10 years younger :)
I understand that some Pebble fans are all about the customization, and will be with you forever. But probably many people care mostly about the battery life, which is severely lacking in watches from Apple, Google, etc.
If Apple realized there was a big enough market to justify making a $200 Apple Watch Basic, how much could that undercut your business?
Relatedly, when will we learn more about the other "core" devices that you're contemplating, and which you alluded to in the video? Building more of a unique ecosystem could help with the moat.
Companies like Garmin, Coros and Suunto already make less-smart-watches with weeks of battery life, and those haven't convinced Apple to budge from only making watches that do everything under the sun but barely last a day. Another long-lasting watch from a tiny brand probably isn't going to move the needle.
In thinking further, I realized that the buttons are actually a pretty good moat against the big tech company competitors. Their UIs are all about touchscreens, so they'll never have as many/useful buttons as Pebbles do.
I can never go back to a 2 day battery life for a watch, even if my 5 year old iPhone technically can’t make it through half a day of use….
They just switched to OLED with the Pace 4, for better or worse. AOD battery life took a hit but it does look a lot nicer than MIP.
* Venu 3 for $350 has 2 week battery life [1]
* Forerunner 55 for $150 has 2 week battery life [2]
I don't see why you are defining success as 30 days of battery life when the baseline is charging your watch every day.
Up until about 10 years ago, no one would have considered the baseline to be charging your watch every day. Even today, most watches/wrist-worn step counters don't require daily charging.
I wouldn't define 30 days as success, but I do want to start out at 2+ weeks. Battery life gets worse over time, and watches aren't meant to last for just a little while. I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on something that will require charging more than once a week within a year or two.
Appreciate the links, but I'm guessing these are estimates with AOD disabled? That's another benefit of the Pebble (AOD doesn't reduce battery life).
Pebble (and Fitbit, and others) were always in the "week-plus" timeframe for charging. Meeting the "minimum bar" of 14-17 days battery life (of the OG pebbles) is successful. Shooting for "30 days" is definitively best-in-class performance for smart-watches!
A year of firmware updates later, I am back down to less than 2 days using the same settings.
I don't think the big manufacturers are going to change their ways anytime soon...
Namely, you'd have to turn off the always on screen (I gave this up easily), as well as "flick to wake", which I found harder to give up.
If I were to press a button on my watch to read a notification, I may as well use my phone. YMMV.
Props to Core and Rebble for making Pebble what it is today and casting a bright future for theses watches. Been happily wearing my Pebble Steel for the past month after replacing its battery, looking forward to the PT2!
Surely they must have one on hand in their namesake blue.
like a cyanogenmod or lineageos but for an older watch model
someone has completely decompiled the firmware for the Garmin Forerunner 245 which is very similar to a Fenix 5
imagine if someone took on making open firmware for it
https://github.com/anvilsecure/garmin-ciq-app-research/
if taking on a brand name might incur lawsuits there are other watches like the wahoo rival which was completely retired and they got out of the business (it was only $99 too)
or there are other ppen hardware options from China
If the health monitoring is reliable, im sold. I want to move on from apples clutches despite the pebble hardware not looking particularly attractive to me
One of the recent development updates mentioned adding a global "vibrate on hour" setting which historically had to be implemented as an option by the specific watchface you're using.
Except...
> Another important note - some binary blobs and other non-free software components are used today in PebbleOS and the Pebble mobile app (ex: the heart rate sensor on PT2 , Memfault library, and others). Optional non-free web services, like Wispr-flow API speech recognizer, are also used. These non-free software components are not required - you can compile and run Pebble watch software without them. This will always be the case. More non-free software components may appear in our software in the future. The core Pebble watch software stack (everything you need to use your Pebble watch) will always be open source.
So 100% FOSS, except for the parts that are closed source now, and any that they add later.
A lot of battery firmwares are closed source, the way that they fixed this for the early pinephone was literally just staring at a memory listing and aiming a heat gun at the battery to see how it reacted when it went hot.
> We’ve also published electrical and mechanical design files for Pebble 2 Duo. Yes, you can download the schematic (includes KiCad project files) right now on Github! This should give you a nice jumpstart to designing your own PebbleOS-compatible device.
But this is about the software/firmware running on it.
Then why not have the headline say "99% open source"? IMO, either it doesn't matter and you can just say that it's almost all FOSS, or it does matter and you really shouldn't be lying about it.
> Technically measurable, but irrelevant in practice when the alternatives are all basically closed source.
The alternatives are the pinetime, watchy, and bangle.js, which AFAIK are also ~95% FOSS. I guess Apple and Google also offer smart watches, but I'd argue that those are so different in terms of features that they're not really direct competitors.
It seems to be comparable to debian, and that's as open source as it gets.
A few years from now we will see the usual HN thread were contributors lachrymosely complain about how their precious work was stolen by a good-turned-evil organization.
i don't normally praise google, but i am glad their open-sourcing of pebbleOS here enabled this new revival of Pebble devices.
https://ericmigi.notion.site/Core-Devices-Software-Licensing...
What we need is more awareness that looking at the license alone is not enough to make an informed decision if contributing to a project is aligned with the contributors attitude and personal goals.
With that in mind: Thank you for putting the CLA right in the repo where it belongs and people can easily find it. Many organizations put a license upfront and bury the CLA. For a particularly bad example try MonoDB.
but in the rest of the ecosystem a bunch of the inherited code is already Apache or MIT. so, i presume you have already forked the other repos to relicense them. can you drop a link?
Calling it "stealing" doesn't help.
[1] I'd usually call it a distraction, a sleigh of hand, smoke and mirrors, but we have to give Eric credit for not burying the CLA.
Learned a new word, thank you!
https://www.etymonline.com/word/lachrymose
Greek dakryma
"-d- to -l- alteration in Latin"
"The Medieval Latin practice of writing -ch- for -c- before Latin -r- also altered anchor, pulchritude, sepulchre. The -y- is pedantic, from the former belief that the word was pure Greek."
We’ve created our own Pebble Appstore feed (appstore-api.repebble.com) and new Developer Dashboard. Our feed (fyi powered by 100% new software) is configured to back up an archive of all apps and faces to Archive.org (backup will gradually complete over the next week). Today, our feed only has a subset of all Pebble watchfaces and apps (thank you aveao for creating Pebble Archive!). Developers - you can upload your existing or new apps right now! We hope that this sets a standard for openness and we encourage all feeds to publish a freely and publicly available archive.
With Repebble (Core Devices) and their new appstore (or/and apt-style repository system), Rebble seems obsolete, it's a bit sad. They deserve credit which they won't be able to claim anymore. They should be rewarded somehow for bridging the dark age, otherwise it seems they served purpose all until Eric returned and said "Thank You and fuck off".
Also, to me, Eric talking doesn't sound authentic, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's lying. I don't mean to insult though, mad respect for putting project like Pebble together.
Hope that there's some place and purpose for Rebble in the future.
The nature of driving a healthy open source centered ecosystem is that you don't control it under your iron fist: you make good contributions, users _and_ companies are able to use them in all new ways which comply with the licensing terms. And it seems that RePebble is going way beyond the licensing terms requirements, but bending over backwards to honor Rebble here when they aren't actually required to.
I just can't imagine what people want from RePebble if not this: they are being maximally open, making it so all of everything would be able to continue if they went out of business tomorrow, while also actively enabling people to continue using Rebble's store and paid offerings. Should they be forcing users to use Rebble's offerings (instead of making things even more open) as a reward for doing a good job bridging the dark age?
They also backed down from their ludicrous position that they are acting as protectors of other people's watchfaces being downloaded in bulk by a particular company they don't like, whereas they are totally fine with the watchfaces being publicly available for general use. It clearly reads as them trying to clutch control of the one thing they haven't open sourced.
Rebble contributors did have a legitimate gripe, which is that they were lead to develop some additional software under the idea that there would be an agreement at the end of the day. But the Rebble Foundation's response to this was totally immature and irrational.
I agree with what Eric said in his follow up, which is that it is quite concerning to engage in a partnership with an organization which reacts like this as part of a negotiation process. God knows I wouldn't, and it doesn;t surprise me that an alternative solution was found.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/pebble/comments/1ozzsr9/an_update_o...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/pebble/comments/1p0huk5/pebble_rebb...
That seems a little more serious than "could be proactive about comms" especially when this is one of the key people responsible for a lot of the original Pebble tech, rebble tech, and working within Google to get the Pebble OS open sourced.
If Rebble wants to take the risk and put out a smartwatch, there is nothing stopping them. Infact all of the open sourcing work Core Devices has done gives them a good starting point.
This seems like an overly harsh take.
Why won't they be able to claim credit for the work that they did the past because of other people's work in the present?
> Also, to me, Eric talking doesn't sound authentic, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's lying. I don't mean to insult though, mad respect for putting project like Pebble together.
What the heck are you trying to do here if not insult him? It seems wild to say he sounds inauthentic and you think he's potentially lying, and then try to hedge by saying that's not intended as an insult.
> I earned almost nothing from Pebble Tech Corp. I paid myself a $65,000 salary each year. I did not get any payout through the asset sale.
Eric also made a pretty detailed writeup a few years ago about what drove the failure and acquisition of the original Pebble company: https://ericmigi.com/blog/success-and-failure-at-pebble