Your opinion regarding the descriptive qualifier of this problem as an “engineering” problem, thus special (a no-true-scotsman) and exempt from all other requirements certainly isn’t based on facts. You first. But hey,…
The tenacity of this evasive posturing is pretty tedious. I suppose the odds of some non-technical user wiping their phone or destroying it, thus losing their last working copy of the app (after Pebble’s IP is dropped…
No, it’s pretty unreasonable, and obviously a business decision.
Look at how the watch’s community failed to grow beyond certain limits, and how small the community remained, despite insistent proclamations that the device is well-designed. I think that speaks for itself.
No. Wrong. If I don’t want the smart bit, the device’s degradation into an ordinary version of a watch should be graceful, and without barriers or punishment. I’m not sure why this is so hard to understand and design…
If you’re selling me something, and you call it a “kind-of-thing” I want it to be an actual thing first and a “smart kind of thing” second. Pebble was kind of not a thing. A little too smart for its own good.
after the initial update See, there’s your problem. Wait, how? The decision to ship the watch in an inoperable state is coercive. optional? Still, this is a dark pattern. Forcing the conversation represents an inductive…
That’s funny, because I’M a consumer, and I’m TELLING you that’s what I want in a smart watch. I guess I just don’t exist. Hilariously, neither does the Pebble.
Pebble was a terrible device, and riddled with horrble design decisions. From the word “go” you knew Pebble was trying to lock you in, register and count you as a user, log demographic information about you, and tether…
Your opinion regarding the descriptive qualifier of this problem as an “engineering” problem, thus special (a no-true-scotsman) and exempt from all other requirements certainly isn’t based on facts. You first. But hey,…
The tenacity of this evasive posturing is pretty tedious. I suppose the odds of some non-technical user wiping their phone or destroying it, thus losing their last working copy of the app (after Pebble’s IP is dropped…
No, it’s pretty unreasonable, and obviously a business decision.
Look at how the watch’s community failed to grow beyond certain limits, and how small the community remained, despite insistent proclamations that the device is well-designed. I think that speaks for itself.
No. Wrong. If I don’t want the smart bit, the device’s degradation into an ordinary version of a watch should be graceful, and without barriers or punishment. I’m not sure why this is so hard to understand and design…
If you’re selling me something, and you call it a “kind-of-thing” I want it to be an actual thing first and a “smart kind of thing” second. Pebble was kind of not a thing. A little too smart for its own good.
after the initial update See, there’s your problem. Wait, how? The decision to ship the watch in an inoperable state is coercive. optional? Still, this is a dark pattern. Forcing the conversation represents an inductive…
That’s funny, because I’M a consumer, and I’m TELLING you that’s what I want in a smart watch. I guess I just don’t exist. Hilariously, neither does the Pebble.
Pebble was a terrible device, and riddled with horrble design decisions. From the word “go” you knew Pebble was trying to lock you in, register and count you as a user, log demographic information about you, and tether…