Inside the fallout between Rebble and Core Devices over Pebble’s open future

Two names have kept Pebble’s spirit alive in recent years: Rebble and more recently Core Devices. But now, the collaboration that was meant to bring them together is showing signs of collapse, as Rebble accuses Core of sidelining their contributions and reneging on agreements.

How a community effort became a battleground

Rebble’s story began when Pebble folded in 2016. While Fitbit absorbed the company and eventually shut down its services, a grassroots group of developers stepped in.

They salvaged what was left of Pebble’s infrastructure and built something new from the ground up. Over time, they rebuilt the app store backend, launched alternative services like weather and voice replies, and poured energy into patching and updating legacy apps. They even created a developer platform and maintained the firmware. All of this has kept classic Pebble watches functional, years past their expiry date.

Now, with Core Devices launching new Pebble-style hardware, the idea was to combine efforts. Rebble would continue supporting software and services, and Core would focus on building physical devices. But that understanding is fraying.

Rebble says Core broke the deal

The current dispute centers around the app store infrastructure. According to Rebble, the version now running under Core’s umbrella is entirely built on Rebble’s data, backend systems and ongoing maintenance. And while there was verbal agreement that the two groups would collaborate and allow for mutual contributions, Rebble claims Core has been evasive when it comes to putting safeguards in writing.

Rebble’s concern is that without guarantees, Core could lock down the app store, strip out Rebble’s influence, and turn it into a closed ecosystem. They say they have repeatedly asked Core founder Eric Migicovsky to commit to protections for Rebble’s work. Instead, Rebble says their servers were scraped in violation of a prior agreement.

Things escalated when Core moved PebbleOS development to a fork under their own control. Rebble volunteers who had been contributing patches and improvements found their work sidelined. Attempts to merge upstream were delayed or ignored. And while Core maintains the OS is still open source, its governance model has shifted toward a centralised approach, with Eric as a self-declared “benevolent dictator.”

A question of control, not credit

Rebble doesn’t appear to be asking for ownership or exclusivity. Their position is that they want to preserve the open and community-driven nature of the Pebble ecosystem. They’re willing to let Core use the infrastructure they’ve built, but they want a guarantee that it won’t be locked away, rebranded, or stripped of community access. Their fear is that years of volunteer effort will be turned into a proprietary product without accountability.

Core, on the other hand, seems to be moving at a different pace, pushing for faster development cycles and broader commercial reach. Rebble claims this has come at the expense of open contribution, transparency, and in some cases, the agreements they thought had been made.

Community weighs in

Rebble’s latest post ends with a call to action. They’re asking the community to help decide what happens next. Should they take legal steps to protect their work and push back on Core’s moves? Or should they step aside and allow Core to run with the ball, even if that means losing control over the infrastructure they built?

It’s a painful moment for a group that’s poured thousands of unpaid hours into keeping Pebble alive. While Eric and Core deserve credit for shipping new hardware at an impressive pace, there’s a growing sense that the soul of the project, its hacker-friendly, community-driven ethos, is at risk.

Some community voices have noted that Pebble’s appeal was always tied to its openness. They fear that without Rebble’s counterbalance, things could slide into the same closed-loop trap that doomed so many other wearables.

Despite the frustration, Rebble hasn’t ruled out working with Core. They still express respect for Eric’s hardware vision and have offered to continue supporting the platform if treated as equals. But the ball now sits firmly in Core’s court. Without clear terms, the risk is that collaboration gives way to fragmentation.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter! Check out our YouTube channel.

And of course, you can follow Gadgets & Wearables on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.