Pebble’s Original Creator Creates An Open Source $99 Voice Recorder Ring You Can Hack
from the power-to-the-people dept
Eric Migicovsky, who basically invented the smartwatch category with the original Pebble, just announced something much simpler: a $99 ring with one button that records voice memos. That’s it. No internet connection required, no cloud storage, no subscription fees, no wake words. Press the button, talk, release. Your note is saved locally—either on the ring’s tiny bit of memory or synced to your phone directly.
What makes the Pebble Index 01 actually interesting isn’t the hardware minimalism (though that’s refreshing). It’s that the whole thing is open source and designed to be hacked. Want long-press to do something different? Go for it. Want your voice memos piped into your task manager? Do it. The platform is yours to modify.
If you don’t know Migicovsky’s background: he kickstarted the original Pebble Watch in what became one of the platform’s most successful campaigns (I backed it), proving smartwatches could be useful. Pebble eventually got passed by bigger players, sold to Fitbit, then absorbed into Google.
A few years back, Eric moved into a different space, creating Beeper, the incredibly cool and useful universal messaging app, that pulls together basically all your messaging tools into a single unified interface. As I discussed with him on the BestNetTech podcast last year, it was a cool example of how protocols let people build things that were more powerful. Last year, Beeper was sold to Automattic.
Somewhere in the midst of all this, Google agreed to open source all the original Pebble software (which it wasn’t using), and Eric decided to get back to his original baby, creating Core Devices, which would create a new generation of Pebble watches which recently shipped. This time, built on open source, totally hackable software, and even the ability of others to build devices on the Pebble platform.
I spoke to Eric last week about the Index 01. The design philosophy is clear and refreshing: keep it simple enough that it works perfectly every time. As someone who constantly sends myself notes—thoughts while walking, reminders mid-conversation, ideas that’ll vanish if I don’t capture them immediately—this is a tool I’m really looking forward to. But the real story isn’t the ring itself. It’s what you can do with it.
The AI processing is local—a small on-device model that does speech-to-text without sending anything to the cloud. But because the whole platform is open source, you’re not stuck with that default behavior. You can reprogram the button. You can route the output wherever you want. I’m already thinking about piping voice memos directly into my vibe coded task management tool, turning quick verbal notes into actionable tasks without touching a screen.
This is the kind of experimentation that closed hardware makes impossible. When you buy a typical consumer device, you’re renting someone else’s vision of how you should use it (and often paying a subscription fee for the privilege). When the hardware and software are open, you’re buying raw capability that you can shape however you need.
The device also has battery life that should last quite a while. Eric says two years, but that really depends on how much you use it. As I understand it, the battery can effectively record between 12 and 15 hours before the battery dies. If you’re just doing short 5 second notes to yourself, that can be quite some time.
The somewhat controversial decision here, though is that the ring is not rechargeable. From what Eric told me, that allowed them to simplify things and also use a longer-lasting hearing aid battery in the ring. Putting in a rechargeable battery and then adding a charging port and cables and such would have made the product more expensive, and less practical.
It’s a design choice that I can understand, but also one that some may bristle at, given that the ring will only last about two years if used regularly (and less if used a lot) and then become e-junk. For what it’s worth, the plan is to allow you to send back your used up ring to Core Devices to recycle when it reaches end of life (the app will warn you with plenty of time ahead). In theory, you would send it back when you buy a new one (assuming you found it super handy over the two years you were using it).
For years, I’ve argued for protocols over platforms in software—the idea that decentralized, open systems give users more control than walled gardens, even when the walled gardens are more convenient.
Consumer hardware has often gone in the opposite direction. We’ve too frequently traded repairability and control for sleekness and integration. Your smartphone is a sealed black box. Your smart home devices stop working when the company shuts down its servers. Even something as simple as a fitness tracker often requires a proprietary app and cloud account just to see your own data.
The Index 01 won’t reverse that trend by itself—it’s a $99 ring, not a revolution. But it’s a reminder that another path is possible. Open hardware, like open protocols, creates options. The Raspberry Pi proved there’s demand for hackable hardware in hobbyist computing. Framework has shown that’s true for laptops. Migicovsky is betting there’s demand for it in everyday consumer devices too.
I put in a pre-order. Not just because I need a better way to capture fleeting thoughts, but because this represents the kind of product I want to see more of: something you control, something you can modify, something that doesn’t stop working when the company loses interest. For all the complaints about big tech dominance and ecosystem lock-in, the solution isn’t better monopolies. It’s tools that put control back in users’ hands—whether that’s through open protocols in software or open platforms in hardware.
This is one example of what that looks like.
Filed Under: gadgets, hardware, index, open source, voice recorder
Companies: core devices
BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to




Comments on “Pebble’s Original Creator Creates An Open Source $99 Voice Recorder Ring You Can Hack”
But
Being effectively disposable seems to directly contradict being an platform “that doesn’t stop working when the company loses interest.” When they lose interest it’s gone forever.
We need things that last.
Re:
Yeah. That’s the bit I struggle with. But what I meant with the “doesn’t stop working when they lose interest” bit is like all those smart devices that break when the company turns off the servers. That won’t happen with this.
But it’s a fair point about it not lasting.
Re: Re:
Sure, that’s fair, but there are only a handful of cases in which a company has “lost interest” less than two years after shipping a product. When people say they want something that can’t be shut down at the company’s whim, that’s not exactly what they want; it’s a proxy for wanting a device that lasts (what the buyer thinks is) a reasonable amount of time, with no changes to the deal they made at purchase time.
(I’ve still got my 40-year-old childhood alarm clock beside my bed, my stove is even older, and the foundry that made my main frying pan ceased to exist in 1927.)
To die within 2 years… 2 years is the minimum product guarantee time in Europe and some other places, which makes we wonder whether people will be able to ship these back for free replacement. Of course, that assumes it’d be legal to ship into such countries; I think the E.U. battery regulations do or will soon preclude it.
Re: Re:
I guess the idea is to buy another ring every 2 years if you’re really get used to it, and, compared to phones that people change every few years, it’s not much.
As Migicovsky said: “I have a good feeling about it”, so chances are that only few people will get fun with it, and others will not remember it in 2 years.
Re: Re: Re:
And I guess the fans will just have to hope it’s still in production, hasn’t been replaced by some model with unwanted changes (“to improve your experience, we now require a Wi-fi password and Facebook account!”), etc. Which means there’s little difference from the usual “internet of things” subscriptions; they’re still beholden to the company, but have perhaps a two-year warning of trouble instead of the usual month.
I’m worried it’d end up like buying shoes: by the time I’ve had them long enough to have broken them in and found them sufficiently useful and durable, there’ll be little chance of me being able to find that model anywhere.
Also, regarding “When the hardware and software are open, you’re buying raw capability that you can shape however you need”—the inability to replace the battery makes me really doubt that about the hardware.
Really cool to see Migicovsky returning to simple, hackable hardware. The Index 01 looks basic on the surface, but the open-source approach makes it far more flexible than typical closed devices. Not sure about the non-rechargeable battery, but the design trade-off makes sense. Overall, it’s refreshing to see a product that puts control back in the user’s hands.
I always thought their watch was pretty cool, but I don’t personally care about phone synchronization and am disappointed by the 7-day battery life. What I’ve always wanted is just a basic watch with minor programmability. Casios are decent, but inaccurate; errors of 15-30 seconds a month are considered within specification. Simply doing a fractional tick-rate correction when adjusted by less than a few seconds would allow one to do much better.
The “Sensor Watch” F-91W replacement module can get within 10 seconds per year that way, but the battery life is only about a year, compared to over 10 years for many watches. With integrated circuits have gone through 50 years of advancement since LCD wristwatches and the Intel 8080 were invented, we should be able to do much better.
While the ring doesn’t grab my interest, I see no problem there…
But it’s a non-replaceable hearing aid battery!? Lame. You know what’s tiny and water-resistant and successfully uses replaceable hearing aid batteries? Hearing aids! Every drug store sells these batteries. And a ring is just about the right size that a standard hardware-store o-ring could work for water-resistance.
…I guess for those who aren’t worried about data security. For many people using this in a professional context, it won’t be legal to ship it without first being sure all relevant data is erased.
RePebble is NOT Pebble
Just for clarification, RePebble is NOT owned or operated by Eric. Eric runs Core Devices, which relaunched the Pebble watches and this ring. RePebble is an independent organization run by the former Pebble community.
Re:
*RePebble is an independent organization run by the former Pebble community to keep the old watches functioning and maintain access to the app store they archived and now maintain to download watchfaces and apps.
RePebble and Core Devices are working together, but they are not the same.
Re:
Bah… somehow I got confused in all of that. Fixed now.
Good god what a stupid take, “buy this ring, open source means you can make it a product, but it’s not one today like closed systems.” So consumers are now supposed to be product managers and engineers with open source – how useful, right?
Re:
No. What are you even talking about?
First off, people will release tools and apps that others can use. You don’t have to code your own.
Second, these days, with vibe coding, you can do it all yourself even if you’re not particularly sophisticated.
I don’t understand your complaint at all. Giving people more freedom is good. If you don’t want to hack you don’t have to.
What a weird take.
Want your voice memos piped into your task manager?
Select Cortana.exe. End process.
Open source hardwareand software? Cool.
You started a thing and then sold it to giant asshole corp? Repeatedly? Git rekt.
But don’t worry peons I mean customers, you are no longer bound by the unknowable whims of our shareholders. Your product will now stop working in no more than 2 years, guaranteed.
Rejoice in your newfround freedom from tyranny, and laugh at the suckers who purchase new batteries for their hearing aids instead of getting new hearing aids as god intended.
At the introductory price of $75, getting only 12 hours of use before it becomes trash, you pay 10 cents per minute of use. I cannot believe they thought this was a good idea, or that intelligent people like Mike would buy into it. The creator admits he invented it solely because he’s too lazy to reach over and hit a button on his watch. Privacy mumbo jumbo aside, this is everything wrong with tech.
Re:
I guess you don’t find this useful, but plenty of us who end up having ideas that it’s useful to keep track of would find it useful. Seems sad that you don’t ever want to remember ideas.
And it’s not about laziness. If you had any understanding of human nature, you’d know that adding any steps creates massive drop off on usage. So for little things, this becomes really handy.
If I have an idea when I’m driving, I don’t want to go open an app.
Re: Re:
Or maybe the parent commenter has other ideas about how to remember ideas? Pressing a button on a smart watch isn’t really an “added step” that requires “opening an app” while driving. One would simply need to program the watch to do audio recording when a button is pressed.
Interesting idea, but no battery replacement is a no from me.
If the hardware is open an aspiring electrical engineer could add a way to make it rechargable and thus more long-lasting. That would be pretty neat.
However, after going over their website and github files (https://github.com/coredevices), I have yet to see any claim or proof that it is actually open hardware. Plenty of language used that hints at such, in creatively ambiguous ways but nothing explicitly stating it.
There are STL files to 3d print out a physical ring of the same shape for fitting purposes but there are no schematics for the electronic aspects of the device. I’m not gonna make it with a pocket full of posey’s.
There are schematics for a watch on the github at least, so that is promising.