I mean, this is a textbook over-simplifaction to devalue an idea. Hell, with that logic, you could call all kinds of things a non-starter.
"Why buy a watch, it just shows the time on my phone"
"Why buy a car, I can just use uber"
"Why buy headphones? My phone has speakers."
The context of where something is changes the idea of what it is. Just become something tells the time, for example, doesn't mean it is the same thing as a watch.
No it's text-book pointing out the bloody obvious. It's a voice memo app sitting in an ring with limited functionality/usefulness. You can tart that idea up however you want but it's an obvious limited value idea itself at it's core and it is exactly the type of thing that will do better as an app on somebody else' platform.
I don't think it's equivalent. When Rebble did what they did, it was because Pebble was going under and they had no EOL plan. Rebble took it upon themselves to carry the torch without having been passed it.
If Core were to do the same thing here, it's not the same, because Rebble is still active. You can't kill what's already dead (Pebble), but Rebble is very much still alive.
So Rebble wants to benefit from code they didn't write (Pebble apps)... but also wants to prevent Pebble from benefiting from code Pebble didn't write (Rebble updates to Pebble apps)?
This seems a little silly, no? rent seeking behavior for maintaining code they didn't write to begin with?
The fact that Core is not willing to just start from the old dump publicly available already shows that it's not just "rent-seeking". Core clearly wants what Rebble has spent significant effort in not just maintaining but also building.
They're entitled to it just because in some sense Core is a successor to Pebble? No, not really.
Of course it's rent-seeking, akin to squatting — Rebble took Pebble apps developed at no cost to the users, and then maintained them and added cost. In some cases they might actually be required by the licenses of individual apps to open source their maintenance.
No one's actually entitled to anything here on either end (legally), I see 0 work being done to actually contact the original authors to seek permission or licensing details.
AFAIK, there wasn't a blanket license that covered all apps in the ecosystem... so each app would vary. In the absence of a license all rights are held by the original developers.
> Rebble took Pebble apps developed at no cost to the users, and then maintained them and added cost.
Again, if that's all it were, Core could and should just take that old Pebble dump and use that. Why bother Rebble if they haven't done anything as you imply.
They embraced the the pebble community with a copy of the App Store, extended it with their own weather apis and the like, and then now are trying to extinguish any ability for Core to implement their own solution without paying them more.
It is basically a amd 7640u with a 7600m glued on. All together and subsidized by the store, there is no reason to think this will be more than $600, likely closer to $500.
I mean, if you have seen RasPi prices lately, I'm not so sure this is true. Seems like a really profitable biz..granted, I wouldn't pay their absurd prices for such underpowered hardware. Virtually nobody should buy their $200 CM5 product for example.
Honestly the best argument for uncompressed is actually nothing to do with file quality or loss - it's that Apple only supports uncompressed Fuji RAWs.
You cannot preview or process lossless compressed Fuji RAWs on iOS natively but the uncompressed files are equal to Apple's own RAWs in support. On the field, it is sadly worth every byte to be able to grab a file directly off the camera and tweak it or send it to an editor. :/
The problem is that the size difference between compressed and uncompressed is enormous. This adds up quickly if you shoot sports or wildlife with 20fps bursts.
> Honestly the best argument for uncompressed is actually nothing to do with file quality or loss - it's that Apple only supports uncompressed Fuji RAWs.
