Windows 7 Phone Gets Jailbreak Tool

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 7 Phone Gets Jailbreak Tool

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @04:41AM from the happens-to-all-of-us-eventually dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Developers have released a 'jailbreak' tool for Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, allowing the handsets to run any application, not just those approved for distribution through Microsoft's Marketplace. Although reminiscent of jailbreak tools for the iPhone, this tool, called ChevronWP7, addresses a feature missing in Microsoft's Windows Phone 7. It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets without the need to first place the application on Marketplace, as is currently required by Microsoft."

134 of 159 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Misfeature by girlintraining · 2010-11-30 04:44 · Score: 1

It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets
Any chance the jailbreak comes with the option to disable this functionality?

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Misfeature by recoiledsnake · 2010-11-30 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets
  Any chance the jailbreak comes with the option to disable this functionality?
  Corporations are not going to be able to use this tool to install applications on general users' handsets without permission.
  That line should read 'employees' handsets' not 'user's handsets'. That's a feature.
  
  --
  This space for rent.
2. Re:Misfeature by gstoddart · 2010-11-30 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  "It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets"
  Any chance the jailbreak comes with the option to disable this functionality?
  If it's their phone, why are you trying to stop it? If it's your phone, why are you hooking it up to your company's servers?
  I read this as more of an in-house corporate thing, as opposed to carriers. Though, I guess it's stupid of me to assume the carriers won't ultimately muck up your phone with crap they want to install (which I'm sure will jack up your data usage to make them more money) -- they always do.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:Misfeature by Ephemeriis · 2010-11-30 05:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets without the need to first place the application on Marketplace, as is currently required by Microsoft.
  Any chance the jailbreak comes with the option to disable this functionality?
  Why?
  Isn't the whole point of jailbreaking a phone like this so that you can run your own code on it? So that you're not tied to the marketplace?
  Why would you go to the trouble of jailbreaking a phone if you didn't want to run code on it that was not marketplace-approved?
  If you don't want that feature, don't jailbreak your phone.
  
  --
  "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
4. Re:Misfeature by Microlith · 2010-11-30 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  I think he means the option to disable the ability for corporations to push applications to users handsets. I also think he is mistaken in the purpose and functionality of the feature.
5. Re:Misfeature by spazdor · 2010-11-30 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, the summary (and the article it quotes) does a completely miserable job of describing the feature in question.
  
  --
  DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Re:If a tree falls on an iphone in the forest..... by windcask · 2010-11-30 04:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Ah, the obligatory "this isn't news" first post. I've come to love you so...
Unofficial hack in a corporation?! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-30 04:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

What corporation would possibly use this? It has bad idea written all over it. If you base your business on being able to hack the phone then you're going to be SOL if Microsoft locks it down again.
As a business your best bet is to use a phone that meets your requirements and is officially supported by the phone manufacture without having to resort to hacks.
1. Re:Unofficial hack in a corporation?! by shadowrat · 2010-11-30 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  My thoughts exactly. I've been doing enterprise app development for IOS. the topic of jailbreaking comes up frequently. it's always quickly dismissed. The idea of a corporation of any size basing operations or strategy around unsupported hardware is pretty silly. What i find really bizzare is that windows phone 7 had no mechanism for enterprise deployment of apps. All along i thought their marketing of amazing xbox live integration was going to rub enterprise customers the wrong way.
2. Re:Unofficial hack in a corporation?! by Bert64 · 2010-11-30 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's simply targeted at end users, just like the iPhone primarily is...
  Corporate users are extremely conservative and have limited feature requirements... It's not a terribly good market because most companies will buy handsets which are a few years old or relatively lowend.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
3. Re:Unofficial hack in a corporation?! by shadowrat · 2010-11-30 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  My evidence is largely anecdotal, but the enterprise market seems to be huge. I make marketing apps for a large international brewing company. They have thousands of devices in the field. Their staff take these devices to events and whatnot and use all this custom software. We have other clients coming in constantly telling us how their sales force has adopted ipads, but they want something custom and branded to really wow people.
  
  They love the devices so much that we are now making enterprise apps for their sales and distribution forces. Granted, the other thing that apple has managed to do that it's competitors are failing to do is produce devices that do not come with expensive plans. Most of the enterprise staff that we are supporting are using ipods and ipads. I think there's been a huge uptake in these devices for use by sales and marketing forces as an alternative to laptops and tablets. In fact, the programs i am responsible for used to be based around windows tablets.
  
  all of my clients are sensitive to the fact that iOS is NOT the easiest platform in the world to develop for. Many that i have talked to are sort of waiting with baited breath for something like an iPad from MS because they realize that form factor / experience coupled with an easy development platform would be ideal.
  
  oh well, i guess in my small world, there are only millions of potential customers in sales and marketing forces, whereas in the consumer space there are billions. i guess i understand that. It still seems to me that MS is competing with the Apple and Google of 4 years ago rather than today.
4. Re:Unofficial hack in a corporation?! by bhcompy · 2010-11-30 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  MS has stated that WM6.5 is being maintained for corporate users. And, honestly, WM6.5 does everything I need in that particular vacuum and supports the mobile .net framework along with multitasking.
Not a jailbreak by The+MAZZTer · 2010-11-30 04:45 · Score: 2, Informative

According to this guy it uses the same APIs as the Windows phone developer tools do.
1. Re:Not a jailbreak by chemicaldave · 2010-11-30 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  According to this guy it uses the same APIs as the Windows phone developer tools do.
  It doesn't matter what you call it if you can circumvent the "app store" jail and load applications directly.
2. Re:Not a jailbreak by tdyer · 2010-11-30 05:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And Since Raphael (co)wrote the tool in question its a good idea to listen to him. Also not a jailbreak. Merely allows sideloading of apps. Doesn't do SIM unlocks or anything else. And microsoft does allow Corporations to side load app's. if you know who to ask...
3. Re:Not a jailbreak by JackieBrown · 2010-11-30 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  And microsoft does allow Corporations to side load app's. if you know who to ask...
  You mean Jeff @ ext 54342? Yeah, he's great!
4. Re:Not a jailbreak by phantomfive · 2010-11-30 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Who do you ask? I haven't heard of any company getting special permissions except Adobe (because Microsoft really wants Flash) and the carriers/phone manufacturers (for obvious reasons). Do you know of any company that has gotten permission from MS to sideload apps, or is this just a rumor you heard?
  
  --
  Qxe4
5. Re:Not a jailbreak by spazdor · 2010-11-30 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  "Sorry. Voice mailbox full."
  Goddammit, he's Slashdotted.
  
  --
  DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
6. Re:Not a jailbreak by jonwil · 2010-11-30 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Adobe isnt getting permission to sideload apps, they are getting special access to private APIs and native code in order to allow Flash to function (and function properly) on WP7. Its likely that Flash will be distributed either via the phone firmware (OTA or shipped on the phone) or via the Marketplace.
  The carriers and phone manufacturers are not getting special permission to sideload. The phone manufacturers have permission as part of their WP7 license to ship manufacturer (and yes carrier) specific apps on their phones as part of the firmware that gets loaded onto the phone.
  I think Microsoft will allow private apps (that is apps written and distributed to only limited people without going on Marketplace) but they are likely working on the pricing model for this (i.e. how much do they charge to allow people to write private apps and how much do they charge to allow these apps to be installed on the phones)
Huh by metrix007 · 2010-11-30 04:45 · Score: 1

I had no idea MS were doing the same thing as Apple, exercising completely control over what applications you have permission to install on a device you purchased. Why would they copy Apple in this area?

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
1. Re:Huh by NJRoadfan · 2010-11-30 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Nintendo was much more strict. They limited developers to 5 releases a year (subject to content approval, although alot of crap got released anyway), plus they manufactured all the game carts. Konami got around this by creating Ultra Games and doubled the limit.
2. Re:Huh by mehrotra.akash · 2010-11-30 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  IMO they are just trying to copy iPhone 1's success(forgetting that was a few years back) for more explaination: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1864010&cid=34195594
3. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-30 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because the community would rather have stable tested apps over the freedom to write and deploy their own apps... which the vast vast majority of them don't have the skills to do in the first place? That's my guess.
  
  Once again it is over the heads of the community here to see that people really don't want all this freedom in their computing platforms. They just want it to work. They pay for having a working gadget. Why does this escape the average Slashdotter?
4. Re:Huh by windcask · 2010-11-30 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  plus they manufactured all the game carts
  This I did not know, but it makes sense. That way they could have control over who has access to their technology; it's actually kind of brilliant. It also explains why the unlicensed games were all those funky colors...
5. Re:Huh by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2010-11-30 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Why would they copy Apple in this area?
  MS wants to put out a stable, good performing phone OS. Locking it down to vetted apps from people who register weeds out a lot of malware as well as a lot of apps that will make the performance of the battery and other apps terrible giving users the impression that the OS/phone sucks. Further, it gives MS more control in case they want to lock things down in future. It requires developers to learn MS's dev tools, thus adding yet another block to cement MS's domination of the desktop OS market. Additionally, this will allow MS to prevent pornographic or overly violent apps from running on the phones, and as much as many of us dislike that, most of the populace seems to consider it a feature.
  Basically, for many reasons MS thinks this will get more copies of their new OS out there and running on phones people are using, so MS can try to gain traction in the market.
6. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because the community would rather have stable tested apps over the freedom to write and deploy their own apps... which the vast vast majority of them don't have the skills to do in the first place? That's my guess.
  You give Microsoft (and Apple) too much credit. It's all about routing users through their respective App Stores, which allow them to have complete control over the platform and turn every bit of functionality into a revenue source for themselves.
  Allowing users to sideload software defeats that entirely.
  
  Once again it is over the heads of the community here to see that people really don't want all this freedom in their computing platforms.
  Same goes for PCs, and I'm sure Microsoft would love it if you agreed to hand complete control over your PC over to them. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to push this lock down model up in the stack over the next few years. So much for being opposed to Trusted Computing, eh?
  
  They just want it to work. They pay for having a working gadget. Why does this escape the average Slashdotter?
  Because, quite frankly, LOCK DOWN NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. Yet stupid arguments like this keep getting made. This kind of restriction serves no one but Apple/Microsoft.
7. Re:Huh by Missing.Matter · 2010-11-30 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Original iPhone lacked 3G, MMS, video recording, third party apps of any kind, and of course an app store. To top it off, it cost $500-$600, came on one carrier, and a single form factor for all. This, on top of multitasking and copy/paste. If the only two things you can pick out are cp/multitasking, you're just grasping at straws to find shortcomings of the platform.
  The fact is, these shortcomings of the iPhone were vehemently defended by Apple aficionados. Before June 21, 2010, the official line from Apple users was "Who needs multitasking on a phone?" Now it's some sort of benchmark for the success/failure of a platform, despite the fact that the iPhone earned most of its respect before iOS 4.0.
  I understand that today, iPhone does have multitasking/c&p, and I agree it's a shortcoming of the WP7 platform, but I don't think it's a deal killer as there are other reasons to want one of the phones (xbox integration, wireless sync, zunepass, and office integration are my major interests in the platform), and they're sure to be introduced in future updates.
8. Re:Huh by SharpFang · 2010-11-30 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you believe the "No, never, not allowed, won't happen" approach is preferred over "Use at your own risk if you choose so" approach? Android has this little neat option "Allow applications from untrusted and 3rd party sources" which you must find in menu and enable manually. People who don't want unreliable apps leave the option unchecked and that's it. The users are completely free to remain within the stable, tested realm, but that's no reason to expressly forbid, fight and deny access to other apps if the user chooses to.
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
9. Re:Huh by digitallife · 2010-11-30 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Apple doesn't have this same restriction. I can easily build my own app and load it on my own phone (or companies phones) without going through the app store for iPhone.
10. Re:Huh by wvmarle · 2010-11-30 05:38 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm surprised too, but for a slightly different reason.
  Microsoft's stronghold is businesses. They always try to market as a one stop shop, providing all software from servers to desktops. Standardise on Microsoft is what many companies do. And MS seems to know that and cater to their needs with corporate installation keys, allowing companies to run their own update servers, etc.
  And bigger companies of course have their own internal applications as well - Microsoft should know that very well.
  It's only logical to me that MS would market their phones to businesses first: it's also from MS so relative easy to market, and presumably relative straightforward integration in existing networks. Don't bother too much with the consumer market, but make sure that when a company needs to issue phones to its workers, that this are Windows phones.
  But then naturally support for internal applications follows. It seems they do not even have a way for companies to set up their internal app store, and that's the part that surprises me most. Because that's where they could get big companies to go for their phones over the competition.
  That should work. After all, in large businesses, the decision makers are not the end users.
11. Re:Huh by digitallife · 2010-11-30 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  If the option exists, then eventually most people will be exposed to an app they really want but requires them to click that button and turn off the safety of the app store. I think it's fine to force people to jailbreak to get that kind if freedom on this kind of platform.
12. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Apple doesn't have this same restriction.
  Err, yes they do. On-device testing requires paying the $99 fee and you're limited in the number of handsets you can load it on. Additionally, you must load it on each handset manually as it cannot be distributed to end users directly without going through the App Store.
  No, Apple and Microsoft are in the same exact lock down boat here. Only differences are the APIs and the fees.
13. Re:Huh by wvmarle · 2010-11-30 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Because the community would rather have stable tested apps over the freedom to write and deploy their own apps...
  You mean the apps that end up in the various stores are actually tested? Beyond "it installs" and checking the description given by the developer?
14. Re:Huh by hsmith · 2010-11-30 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need an App store to distribute your App with Apple. You can use Enterprise or Ad Hoc.
  
  But I guess "zomg apple sucks!" misinformation sounds better and gets you "Insightful"
15. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  If the option exists, then eventually most people will be exposed to an app they really want but requires them to click that button and turn off the safety of the app store.
  Nonsense. Most people would likely never leave the safety of the App Store, and with a default of "off" for non-App Store software it's easy to encourage people to be a little more pro-active.
  Hell I'd be happy if doing so required you to power the unit down and hold a button as it powered on, so long as you so much as had the option of doing so.
  
  I think it's fine to force people to jailbreak to get that kind if freedom on this kind of platform.
  No, jailbreaking means you're forced to violate EULAs and use local exploits to take control over your property from a vendor who very much does not want to let you.
16. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 05:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You can use Enterprise
  Which is great if you're in an Enterprise.
  
  or Ad Hoc.
  Which requires you manually distribute it to a limited number of handsets.
  But go ahead, keep defending it with bad examples that still require you to pay $99.
17. Re:Huh by LO0G · 2010-11-30 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, Apple doesn't make any profit from their app stores. Seriously. All the revenue they get barely pays for the cost of running the store.
  For Apple, the app store is a way of providing value to the expensive devices that they sell. I'm not sure what MSFT's motive is.
18. Re:Huh by drinkypoo · 2010-11-30 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Because Microsoft saw that Apple's users were happier with less flexibility.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:Huh by hsmith · 2010-11-30 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  No, enterprise does not require you to manually distribute it. Since iOS 4 there has been over their air distribution to unlimited handsets. The major drawback to enterprise is the 500 person threshold.
  
  Ad Hoc certainly has drawbacks, but certainly is doable if necessary but should be easier to distribute.
  
  Please, some more uneducated opinions. Lets bash Apple with what we think we know!
20. Re:Huh by Bucky24 · 2010-11-30 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need an App store to distribute your App with Apple. You can use Enterprise or Ad Hoc.
  Ad-hoc only allows your app to be installed on a certain number of devices (I think the limit is 100?). It is meant for testing, or maybe custom software for a small business, not any serious attempt at deployment.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
21. Re:Huh by digitallife · 2010-11-30 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes you have to pay the $99 developer fee, but the rest is nonsense. Have you even looked at the iPhone business options, or are you simply spreading FUD?
22. Re:Huh by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2010-11-30 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  It's only logical to me that MS would market their phones to businesses first: it's also from MS so relative easy to market, and presumably relative straightforward integration in existing networks.
  MS has been trying to market phones to business for many years and getting beaten to death by RIM. They've poisoned their brand in the business smartphone market. Additionally, MS's modus operandi is to dominate a market first, then worry about making money. Business clients are not a big enough segment to pull that off overall, so they have to go after the iPhone and they need to concentrate somewhere first. If they gain any real market share, they'll go after business soon enough.
  I'm sure, like copy/paste, MS will be getting around to providing a way to distribute an app outside their market both for development purposes and for internal apps. It's just not the top of the priority list yet.
23. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  No, enterprise does not require you to manually distribute it.
  Right, but you're still required to be part of a 500 person company.
  
  Ad Hoc certainly has drawbacks, but certainly is doable if necessary but should be easier to distribute.
  Considering you have to bend over backwards to install it and are limited to 100 people, that's a huge drawback.
  
  Please, some more uneducated opinions.
  I apologize for not being fully studied on all the pitfalls and limitations on software distribution for an extremely restrictive platform that I, myself, would never use.
  
  Lets bash Apple with what we think we know!
  Ah, but it's not hard to familiarize yourself with all the restrictions and drawbacks Apple (and Microsoft) impose upon the system. Suffice it to say, you cannot freely distribute software to anyone with an iPhone without going through the App Store or being an Enterprise. You can distribute it to a tiny subset of people, though.
24. Re:Huh by nschubach · 2010-11-30 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  "Happier"... or blissfully ignorant of any other option? (not meant to be offensive)
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
25. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yes you have to pay the $99 developer fee
  Why should I have to pay one cent more to use my own property? I've been corrected on the developer having to load the software, but it's still a painfully manual process for users of ad-hoc packages.
  
  Have you even looked at the iPhone business options
  Why should I look at business options, I'm not a business.
  Why should I have to be a business to write and freely distribute software? Come on, defend DRM and lock down more please.
26. Re:Huh by Abcd1234 · 2010-11-30 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Why would they copy Apple in this area?
  Because the carriers want it.
  The carriers are doing the *exact same thing* with Android, too. The average Slashbot fandroid just doesn't like to admit it outright.
27. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked only AT&T was doing it, and IIRC they did it to only two handsets (which were rooted anyway.) Do you know of others that don't allow non-Market software?
28. Re:Huh by Abcd1234 · 2010-11-30 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked only AT&T was doing it, and IIRC they did it to only two handsets (which were rooted anyway.) Do you know of others that don't allow non-Market software?
  Uh, most of them don't by default. Most require you to go through some set of machinations to jailbr... err... "root" the phone. AT&T just took it one step further by attempting to block the activity. And I absolutely guarantee you it'll only get worse.
  Carriers have absolutely *no* interest in allowing arbitrary software to run on devices connected to their networks. None.
29. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-11-30 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  I still say, "Who needs multitasking on a phone?" There are a few set things that I'd like to be able to run in the background, but I don't need real multitasking. I don't need to be able to edit word documents while watching a Netflix movie. I don't need the phone to be displaying an ebook in the background while I'm using the display to display web pages. All that stuff just wastes RAM and CPU cycles. Everyone recognizes this.
  In truth, Microsoft is copying Apple here in a very particular way: they're trying to create a limited device with which only does a few things but does those things well, rather than creating a feature-rich hunk of junk. It's probably a smart move, too. Get the basics working well, then add bells and whistles with software updates. There's no sin in copying someone else, only in copying someone else poorly.
30. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, most of them don't by default.
  As I understand it, there's a dialog where you can explicitly allow non-Marketplace software, and this was removed only on the AT&T handsets. Rooting isn't necessary for that (while it is for other things) last I checked.
  That said, it is crap. They'd hate my N900, that's for sure.
31. Re:Huh by grub · 2010-11-30 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Why should I have to pay one cent more to use my own property? I've been corrected on the developer having to load the software, but it's still a painfully manual process for users of ad-hoc packages.
  
  Development packages such as Xcode aren't cheap to develop. Apple charges individuals a flat rate for access to the developer program.
  
  $99 is a steal for all the tools they include.
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
32. Re:Huh by Abcd1234 · 2010-11-30 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  That said, it is crap. They'd hate my N900, that's for sure.
  Correct. And fundamentally, that's my point. People are so shocked that Apple and Microsoft limit the software that can be installed on their phones, but fundamentally, it's the carriers that are primarily responsible for this. If Apple and Microsoft want to play in the smartphone game, they're stuck working with the requirements carriers place on them.
  IMHO, the only reason Google gets away with not enforcing this stuff more strictly is that a free OS is hard for the device manufacturers and carriers to pass up, even if it means its tougher to lock down.
33. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-11-30 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well here's the thing that most analysts won't tell you: the business market ultimately tends to go to whatever is considered a status symbol by executives. Blackberry's success in the enterprise market is only partially due to technical benefits of their devices/software. A lot of their success has been because around 10 years ago, someone decided that having a Blackberry was a symbol that you were extremely important.
  Frankly, iPhones started making inroads in the enterprise before they were technologically ready. Whether or not the IT people will thrilled with the idea, if the CEO or VPs wanted to use their iPhones, then the iPhone became a supported platform. You'll hear lots of justifications and technical arguments after the fact, but the actual decision is as much as anything determined by why the PHB thinks is cool.
34. Re:Huh by Cyberax · 2010-11-30 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, back then iPhone was the first mass-market phone with usable browser and multitouch. These were the killer features then.
  But by now, every phone has them. And lots more.
35. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Development packages such as Xcode aren't cheap to develop.
  But they give it out freely, with each OS.
  
  Apple charges individuals a flat rate for access to the developer program.
  No, they charge them the flat rate for the ability to test on hardware and post apps on the store.
  
  $99 is a steal for all the tools they include.
  I get all the tools freely from their website. And why should I have to pay $99 if I want to release an app for free, or work on my own device?
36. Re:Huh by drinkypoo · 2010-11-30 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  What's the difference? Those of us who care are aware of other options. Some of us who are aware of other options still don't care. I'd say they're happier.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
37. Re:Huh by digitallife · 2010-11-30 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes i will defend DRM and lockdown, when it brings a product that is, IMHO, far superior to anything else on the market. Apple has brought some of the most innovative, useable products to the computing stage that have ever existed. I firmly believe that the iOS products would not be as good if you simply let users click a button or whatever to turn off the control apple has over the platform.
38. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  People are so shocked that Apple and Microsoft limit the software that can be installed on their phones, but fundamentally, it's the carriers that are primarily responsible for this. If Apple and Microsoft want to play in the smartphone game, they're stuck working with the requirements carriers place on them.
  Nah, I have to call shenanigans. Android devices and handset vendors need the discounts, so they have to play ball. Apple does the exact same thing, but they also do it to devices like the iPod Touch, iPad, and Apple TV and none of those have anything to do with the carriers.
  By far, Apple and Microsoft are more than happy to lock things down and control their users.
39. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes i will defend DRM and lockdown
  Well, I suggest you give up your PC then. Oh and stop using any open source software. Pretty bad when people on Slashdot will aggressively and loudly defend DRM that serves no one but the vendor.
  
  when it brings a product that is, IMHO, far superior to anything else on the market.
  My point is that DRM and lock down are not necessary to bring a superior product.
  
  I firmly believe that the iOS products would not be as good if you simply let users click a button or whatever to turn off the control apple has over the platform.
  Then by that logic OS X should be a hellhole. Yet it's not.
40. Re:Huh by Abcd1234 · 2010-11-30 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Apple does the exact same thing, but they also do it to devices like the iPod Touch, iPad, and Apple TV and none of those have anything to do with the carriers.
  They use the same OS, so why is that surprising? ie, it's as much collateral damage as anything else. And, frankly, they have no reason to treat those platforms differently... it creates software development, testing, deployment, and support headaches, as they would suddenly have to have different versions of the OS running on different platforms. It just ain't worth it. It's simpler to just lock all the platforms down and treat them the same way.
41. Re:Huh by Missing.Matter · 2010-11-30 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I don't need to be able to edit word documents while watching a Netflix movie.
  The funny thing is, iPhone (or at least iPad, because that's my only experience with iOS 4) still can't do this. When you switch out of the netflix app, the movie stops playing, and sometimes even quits playing when you return to the app.
42. Re:Huh by grub · 2010-11-30 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Ah shit, you're right. I forgot that I installed Xcode off my DVDs before I paid my $99. Mea culpa!
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
43. Re:Huh by digitallife · 2010-11-30 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  You're being an idealist. Everything is not black and white, good or bad. I know you really don't want to see it, but apple's lockdown is a part of what makes their products good. Mac OS X *is* more locked down than Linux or windows, or had you forgotten? And iOS is better than Mac OS X, at least for most everyday purposes. Sure it's not the only thing that makes the platform great, but it is an integral part. In a perfect world... Sure maybe we wouldn't need DRM or lockdown. Let me know when you find the rabbit hole leading to one.
44. Re:Huh by Missing.Matter · 2010-11-30 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, iOS had this functionality before 4.0. On my iPad (pre 4.2), iBooks saved my page location if I left to go into safari. The best thing 4.2 actually added was a quick app switcher (double home button click). Otherwise it's not all that different from before unless your app takes advantage of special functionality (like Pandora).
45. Re:Huh by Microlith · 2010-11-30 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  You're being an idealist.
  The alternative is to be a defeatist who gives up and abdicates all control of mobile computing up to self-interested corporations.
  
  I know you really don't want to see it, but apple's lockdown is a part of what makes their products good.
  It's entirely peripheral.
  
  Mac OS X *is* more locked down than Linux or windows, or had you forgotten?
  It is? At worst it's equal with Windows, last I checked. I don't think they've started requiring kexts to be signed, or prohibit me from running arbitrary applications. Or are you referring to not being easy to install on non-Apple hardware, which is a different problem?
  
  In a perfect world... Sure maybe we wouldn't need DRM or lockdown.
  And here you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the world simply won't work without DRM and lock down.
46. Re:Huh by Missing.Matter · 2010-11-30 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Right, but judging the entire platform based on the lack or inclusion of c&p/multitasking is myopic. Despite theese features, WP7 does what other platforms do very well, and better in some situations (for example, I like the camera app better on WP7 compared to iPhone, and every WP7 device is required to have a dedicated hardware camera button, whereas iPhone is a software button you have to tap on the screen).
  Further I feel that WP7 offers value that the iPhone or Android can't match like Xbox integration, wireless sync (although it looks like Android has apps you can buy to do this) and other features I've already mentioned.
  The platform is just starting, and I find the launch offering to be desirable. You're right that other platforms have these features, and MS must be quick to add them. Talk to me again in a few months. If MS hasn't updated the platform at all, I'll be changing my tune.
47. Re:Huh by uniquename72 · 2010-11-30 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Mac OS X *is* more locked down than Linux or windows
  I realize that holes have been blown in nearly every sentence you've typed already, but I'd love to see you explain how OSX is more locked down than Windows. Please proceed.
  
  (Oh, and if you'd like to back up the ridiculous statement that iOS is better than OSX, feel free to do that as well.)
48. Re:Huh by uniquename72 · 2010-11-30 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  So you agree with his assessment of both Enterprise (which he didn't say required manual distribution) and Ad Hoc, and yet you close with douchebaggery about "uneducated opinions"? What has /. become?
49. Re:Huh by DavidD_CA · 2010-11-30 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's my understanding the WP7 does indeed do multi-tasking, in the same way that the current iPhone does it.
  
  --
  -David
50. Re:Huh by LeonPierre · 2010-11-30 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  "Who needs multitasking on a phone?"
  I think that most iPhone and iPhone 3g users will tell you that they can use their phone just fine without multitasking....
  Today.
  
  --
  "If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet"
51. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-11-30 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Why is that a funny thing? You don't need to have a movie running the the background when you aren't watching it. Decoding video that isn't being displayed is a waste of power.
52. Re:Huh by gmack · 2010-11-30 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  That is the price you pay for letting the carrier subsidize your phone My GeeksPhone One wasn't that expensive and came pre-rooted with a boot menu (selectable by holding camera+ volume up on startup) that lets me backup/restore the rom, load OS updates and export the ROM as a USB drive.
53. Re:Huh by Missing.Matter · 2010-11-30 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  WP7 offers the same multitasking capabilities as the pre iOS 4.0 iPhone, and in some ways goes beyond it. That is, on WP7 you can suspend an application so that when you launch it again, you're where you left off. This accounts for probably 75% of a users need to multitask, and must be implemented on a per application basis. WP7 calls it "tombstoning" (when the application is terminated, a record of its state, the tombstone, is created, and read when the application is launched again.)
  WP7 also supports push notifications in a way that's faaaar superior to even iPhone 4. An MSDN blog describes WP7 notifications as a "tap on the user’s shoulder." I would content that the corresponding iPhone experience is a shout in the face and a punch in the stomach; WP7s unintrusive ribbon is much more usable than iPhone application halting pop-up. The idea behind push notifications is to provide a low-resource method for an always connected application, like AIM. I'd say this method meets the needs of another 20% of applications. Again this is enabled per application
  So I would argue that WP7 meets the multitasking needs for 95% of applications out there. iOS 4 goes the extra distance and adds certain APIs to provide processes like music that can play in the background. This is something that, beyond 1st party apps, WP7 does not do. Again, this is enabled per application
  Pre iOS 4.0, Apple customers argued that true multitasking is not necessary, since the current implementation accounts for the majority of user needs. Now all of a sudden it's the most important measure of a platform. It should be noted that iOS still to this day does not support true multitasking; in each of the examples above, I noted that the functionality must be enabled on a per app basis. The OS will not save your app for you like it does if you remove focus in windows. For instance, the Netflix App will stop playing your movie if you switch to another app. Meaning if you are watching something an you want to look up an actor on IMDB, you're boned.
  For these reasons and others, I believe the claims that a) WP7 does not support multitasking and b) it will be the death of the platform are overblown and sensationalized, particularly by people who have never used the platform.
54. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-11-30 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, the point is that it's not necessary to have the entire ebook reading application running in the background, rendering pages that aren't being displayed. Doing that is a waste of power.
55. Re:Huh by Missing.Matter · 2010-11-30 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  The scenario I run in to is while I'm watching a movie, I might recognize one of the actors and want to know what I've seen him in. So I launch the IMDB app. Netflix will stop playback entirely; when I go to resume, it's not a matter of hitting unpause, but restarting the viewing session. Sometimes playback resumes from where I left off, sometimes not. It seems to be random.
56. Re:Huh by Missing.Matter · 2010-11-30 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure how PDF readers work, but shouldn't you only have to render the page once, and only re-render it if it changes?
  If this is the case, if I'm switching between my ebook and wikipedia, wouldn't it be more efficient to keep the ebook in memory, than to clear memory, close the application, re initialize the application, and then load the book back into memory?
57. Re:Huh by Missing.Matter · 2010-11-30 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  iOS apps are hardly guaranteed to be stable or safe. You don't know how many times I've downloaded an app update which completely erased all of my data, or completely crashed on startup.
58. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-11-30 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds like it might be poor programming on Netflix's part, not necessarily a problem with the OS.
59. Re:Huh by Missing.Matter · 2010-11-30 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's kind of the point. On the iPhone platform, and WP7 for that matter, multitasking in all its forms is enabled by the application developer. Therefore the user cannot expect a reliable experience when using apps; exiting an app can have any effect from erasing all unsaved data to running the process in the background.
  Therefore, I don't understand why WP7 multitasking is measured against iPhone, when it's largely similar to the iPhone (covering most user needs) and the iPhone's user experience (in terms of app switching) is inconsistent at best.
60. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-11-30 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  If this is the case, if I'm switching between my ebook and wikipedia, wouldn't it be more efficient to keep the ebook in memory, than to clear memory, close the application, re initialize the application, and then load the book back into memory?
  Depends on what you're keeping in memory and what you're doing when the application is "closed". We're talking about a computer with limited processing power, limited battery power, and limited memory, but fast internal storage.
  So here's the issue: if you're talking about a single PDF viewer running in the background while you take a quick look at a single webpage, then yeah, it might be just as well to keep the PDF viewer running. But where do you draw the line? You can have a lot of different applications running at once, and if you have a bunch running in the background, you're going to start running out of resources quickly.
  So the smart thing to do for these sorts of devices is what Apple has done. They provide programmers with the APIs to run things in the background if it's something that really makes sense (playing audio, for example) while also providing an API to suspend the current state of the application to disk. This way they basically allow developers to give the users most of the benefits of multitasking while preventing the need for users to track/manage application usage. The alternative is basically that I (as the user) need to be very watchful about background applications and constantly close unused applications in order to get decent performance.
  The other alternative would be to provide beefed up system specs (more processor/RAM, larger battery, making a thicker/heavier and more expensive device) as well as providing better application management. At that point, you may as well buy a Macbook Air.
61. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-11-30 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's kind of the point. On the iPhone platform, and WP7 for that matter, multitasking in all its forms is enabled by the application developer.
  Meh. Poor performance can always be achieved by the application developer. Apple can't force other people to make sensible choices. Now if you want to argue that Apple's APIs are insufficient-- well, I don't know, maybe they are. If the reason Netflix's app behaves badly is that iOS doesn't permit it to behave well, then that's Apple's fault. If Apple provides the API and Netflix doesn't use it properly, then that's on Netflix.
  But I still say, "Who needs real multitasking on a phone?" What I need from Netflix's app is a good suspend/resume routine. I don't need Netflix to decode video in the background when it's not being displayed. All it's going to do is kill my battery life and steal processor cycles from whatever else I'm doing on that phone.
62. Re:Huh by Grishnakh · 2010-11-30 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  It seems to me that the smart way to do it would be to have the Netflix app stay open and running, but automatically pause when the user switches to another app, and then resume when they return. The annoying thing about non-multitasking is losing where you were; what people really want most of the time is just to be able to go back to an app and pick up where they left off, preferably with as little delay as possible.
63. Re:Huh by LO0G · 2010-11-30 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  The best one I was able to find was this one:
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20008540-37.html
  Money quote:
  
  So while App Store sales are through the roof, Apple's certainly not making a killing from them. But that's never been the point, anyway. Like iTunes itself, the App Store's purpose is to drive hardware sales. It's a secondary business.
64. Re:Huh by dudpixel · 2010-11-30 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  read up on how android works. the entire ebook app may well be in memory (if you have spare memory) but will not be consuming cpu cycles unless it is active. If you have free ram just sitting there, why not use it to make your phone faster? actually its basically the same as what ios 4 does...
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
65. Re:Huh by dudpixel · 2010-11-30 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  so you've never gone on youtube to listen to something? just because SJ thinks there isn't a reason for something, doesn't mean someone shouldn't be able to do it on their OWN device that they PAID for. Why artificially limit things when you really dont need to?
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
66. Re:Huh by dunkelfalke · 2010-11-30 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  The smart thing to do is to give the user the choice to either shut down an application or send it to the background, making the shutdown the default action. This is how I used to work with Windows Mobile and was very good.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
67. Re:Huh by cbhacking · 2010-11-30 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Meh, the iPhone still doesn't even really allow true multitasking of third-party apps anyhow. There's a very limited set of things such apps are allowed to do (which covers the major use cases but is far from complete) and you can still only interact with one application at a time. The latter restriction makes some sense given the form-factor, but I don't feel it should be mandatory. The former... well, it's better than nothing, but in my opinion doesn't really qualify as "iPhones now have multi-tasking" intil you add the word "limited" in there.
  
  --
  There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
68. Re:Huh by Cyberax · 2010-12-01 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  "Right, but judging the entire platform based on the lack or inclusion of c&p/multitasking is myopic."
  It's not. WP7 has some potential. But it needs to move quickly, because Android and iPhone do not stand at one place.
  (I don't really understand the usefulness of XBox integration, BTW)
69. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-12-01 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  It seems to me that the smart way to do it would be to have the Netflix app stay open and running, but automatically pause
  Why is that smarter than suspending the entire application to disk, saving your place in the movie, and resuming when you go back to the Netflix app? Both ways make sure you don't lose your place. Keeping the full Netflix app running in the background just takes up system resources, which are limited.
70. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-12-01 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's needlessly complicated, and one of the many reasons why Windows Mobile was junk.
71. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-12-01 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  What's your point? Yes, Android also employs techniques to avoid real multitasking by suspending applications which aren't running. Seems to me that this is a validation of Apple's way of doing things. To the extent that Android devices don't limit multitasking, it explains why they often get really awful battery life.
72. Re:Huh by Grishnakh · 2010-12-01 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Because then it'll take a while for you to resume. Keeping the app running in memory (in pause) means resuming playback will be instantaneous. Consumers generally like things fast.
  Of course, I don't know offhand exactly how much memory keeping the Netflix app open requires, or how much memory the iPhone has, so it might not be feasible, but it's definitely preferable. In other apps with smaller memory footprints, this would definitely be preferable to exiting the app and requiring it to be restarted.
73. Re:Huh by dunkelfalke · 2010-12-01 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Windows Mobile was by far the best - and certainly most powerful - handheld operating system, even if somewhat complicated to use. But I prefer that approach to an OS that is extremely dumbed down. You know how they say: it you make something easy enough to be used by idiots, only idiots will use it.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
74. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-12-01 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know exactly how it all works, but it does seem that iOS will keep certain things in memory until the memory is needed. Either way, memory is limited (I think it's only 256M in the iPad), so Apple is smart to force developers to deal with what happens when their application is dumped into the background and the memory needs to be freed up. Given that the internal storage is flash, suspending the application to disk is not as slow as it might be, and it provides a pretty transparent experience so long as app developers do things correctly.
75. Re:Huh by nine-times · 2010-12-01 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  My experience wasn't just that it was "complicated to use", but that it was probably the buggiest and most useless OS I've ever experienced. It had some nice features, but it was so rare to get everything working properly so the feature-set was irrelevant. I've had to use and support Windows-based phones in the past, and I considered them effectively unusable.
  Maybe you had better luck.
76. Re:Huh by dudpixel · 2010-12-05 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  The 'awful battery life' is not common and is a result of allowing the developers more freedom. Android doesn't cause poor battery life, only apps do. And only poorly written apps at that. So if you find your device has poor battery life, its time to see what apps you have and eliminate the offending one(s).
  However, given that you can also run "services" on iOS (albeit for a limit number of things), I'd suggest that the same could also happen there too, but possibly doesn't due to the relatively small number of apps using services.
  My galaxy s doesn't have poor battery life, though I haven't tested how many days it will last on a full charge (it is more than 3). Even my old HTC magic would outlast the iphone 3GS...so any battery life issues would relate to either a specific phone or (as mentioned) rogue apps.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
77. Re:Huh by badkarmadayaccount · 2010-12-09 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Licensing restrictions.
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
It's an API! by eldavojohn · 2010-11-30 04:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

According to this guy it uses the same APIs as the Windows phone developer tools do.
Yep this is just a trick. Microsoft has released a veiled "Jailbreak" and by the time you're done coding your application for your Jailbroke Windows 7 Phone, you'll realize that you just coded a WinCE application for a mobile phone! Even worse, you purchased one thinking you could jailbreak it!

Sincerely,

Admiral Ackbar

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:It's an API! by mlts · 2010-11-30 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Windows CE isn't a bad OS. I wished MS could have taken a different tack, but I sort of understand how they are going with WP7:
  1: Release as closed as possible.
  2: Add functionality.
  The reason for this is that if they continued with the "open" platform of WM6.5, eventually there would be malware on the platform and the whole ecosystem would be known for being "insecure" just as users bash Windows on their PC for being "insecure" (when it is their own fault for installing pr0nviewerxxx.exe, or they get nailed through a Web browser or add-on, something the OS can't really protect against [1].)
  I predict that eventually MS is going to allow signed executables onto their devices, as well as a way for the enterprise to slap a root cert onto devices so they can have in-house apps and easily distribute/update them via OTA. However, I am sure MS wants to go slowly at this and watch iOS and Android's mistakes so they don't get stung by rogue apps, or Web browsers that allow a phone to be compromised by merely hitting a site.
  [1]: Of course, no OS is completely secure, but comparing oranges to oranges, Windows is on par for the course, supporting ASLR, DEP, and other security features. The battle for the desktop is being fought at the browser, add-on, and Trojan executable points these days.
2. Re:It's an API! by nschubach · 2010-11-30 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm waiting for the story about how Microsoft meant their phone to be open and how they support the movement.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
3. Re:It's an API! by Microlith · 2010-11-30 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  if they continued with the "open" platform of WM6.5, eventually there would be malware on the platform and the whole ecosystem would be known for being "insecure" just as users bash Windows on their PC for being "insecure"
  Really? All they'd have to do is make it a user optional switch with respect to non-store software and flip it to off by default, and make the store prominent. They'd probably never have an issue. Forcibly locking the system down with no opt-out doesn't help security at all.
  Like Apple, this is all about total control over the end user and using that control to route them through profit centers (and I don't believe for a moment that these stores will not be profitable, otherwise what's the point.)
4. Re:It's an API! by AndrewNeo · 2010-11-30 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft's response (some time last week, this isn't 'new') was basically, "you get the best experience if you stay with the way the handset designers give it to you". As in, they're not saying yes or no, just the ambiguous we'd just rather you didn't.
5. Re:It's an API! by Mister+Whirly · 2010-11-30 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yep this is just a trick.
  And then you signed it -
  
  Admiral Ackbar
  Didn't you mean "It's a trap!"
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
6. Re:It's an API! by Missing.Matter · 2010-11-30 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Most instances of malware on the Windows desktop operating system are due to users actively installing malicious programs, security warnings and toggle switches be damned. Malware is much more dangerous for MS than it is for Google or Android, because of the association consumers have between viruses and windows. Suddenly Apple is making "I'm an iPhone, I'm a Windows Phone" ads touting WP7 as the same old MS junk.
7. Re:It's an API! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2010-11-30 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Forcibly locking the system down with no opt-out doesn't help security at all.
  Certainly it does, it's just that it does so while also imposing restrictions many of us feel are too strict.
  
  Like Apple, this is all about total control over the end user and using that control to route them through profit centers (and I don't believe for a moment that these stores will not be profitable, otherwise what's the point.)
  This is a circular argument. You claim this is about profiting from the stores then assert the stores are about profit because otherwise why are they making user use them. In truth, I doubt Apple has any real plan to make money from the app store. They never really made significant profit from the iTunes store, but instead have consistently used it as a near-break-even way to sell more hardware. To date, that's the same situation as the app store. Apple wants their devices to be stable and perform well and have good battery life and have an app community that rapidly takes advantages of new technologies they implement and without malware issues. That's why they have an app store. While it may be too restrictive for geeks (I don't have an iPhone) it does represent a benefit to many categories of users and does bring them real benefits.
8. Re:It's an API! by Idiomatick · 2010-11-30 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  I think Apple does it because they are malicious and evil. MS is doing it because they are stupid and copying.
  
  I'm not sure which is worse.
I'm totally shocked. by MrCrassic · 2010-11-30 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nah, this could'nt have possibly been an inevitably of a locked-down operating system in the world of jailbroken iPhones and rooted Android devices...
btw Its Windows Phone, or Windows Phone 7 by Anonymous Coward · 2010-11-30 05:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

Can we not call it Windows 7 Phone? Its Windows Phone.. as in Windows Phone OS 7, is it really that confusing? I thought we were nerds here
Re:Running developed apps directly on the phone? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2010-11-30 05:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Get a BlackBerry - then you don't need to jailbreak in the first place, as you're able to install whatever you want, from wherever you want, and whenever you want ;)
Re:If a tree falls on an iphone in the forest..... by camperslo · 2010-11-30 05:21 · Score: 1

What's needed is a rootkit for installing Android.
That would be a great escape for someone who gets one of these phones as a gift.
Re:Running developed apps directly on the phone? by Microlith · 2010-11-30 05:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

Or an N900, then you get a much more standard Linux style OS instead of something wholly proprietary like the BlackBerry OS.
Re:Running developed apps directly on the phone? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2010-11-30 05:34 · Score: 1

I refuse to accept this - my OS is better than your OS. So there!
Gap between 100 and 500 by tepples · 2010-11-30 05:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apple's iPhone Enterprise Developer Program is only for companies with 500 or more employees, and ad-hoc is limited to 100 devices. What is for companies in the gap between 100 devices and 500 employees?
1. Re:Gap between 100 and 500 by hsmith · 2010-11-30 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  The 100 device limit for Ad Hoc is certainly a major drawback for non-enterprise accounts. I absolutely agree. Apples advice has been "setup 4 accounts" - which is just a PITA.
No "Unknown sources" on AT&T by tepples · 2010-11-30 05:49 · Score: 1

Android has this little neat option "Allow applications from untrusted and 3rd party sources" which you must find in menu
The "Unknown sources" checkbox is nowhere to be found on a few AT&T handhelds (such as Motorola Backflip and HTC Aria), and I'm not aware of AT&T telling customers about this up-front.
Sandboxing, energy use, damaged goods by tepples · 2010-11-30 05:55 · Score: 1

Locking it down to vetted apps from people who register weeds out a lot of malware
So does proper sandboxing of applications. See OLPC Bitfrost for an example of how to do it right.

as well as a lot of apps that will make the performance of the battery and other apps terrible
Then the battery management application should list what applications have used the most energy, where energy is estimated from cumulative CPU time, camera time, GPS time, etc.

Further, it gives MS more control in case they want to lock things down in future.
This is the actual antifeature. Microsoft is intentionally selling what economists call damaged goods.
1. Re:Sandboxing, energy use, damaged goods by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2010-11-30 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Locking it down to vetted apps from people who register weeds out a lot of malware
  So does proper sandboxing of applications. See OLPC Bitfrost [laptop.org] for an example of how to do it right.
  While I'm a big fan of Bitfrost style sandboxing, you're missing part of the picture here. Android, iOS, and Windows 7 Phone Edition, all use sandboxing already. But who configures the sandbox? Users clearly don't have the expertise, so like with the OLPC you end up with a vendor doing it for the user. That's what the App stores are.You go there and download apps and ACLs.
  
  as well as a lot of apps that will make the performance of the battery and other apps terrible
  Then the battery management application should list what applications have used the most energy, where energy is estimated from cumulative CPU time, camera time, GPS time, etc.
  Assuming doing that level of monitoring doesn't hurt performance itself, why do you think users will look at the "battery management" application? That's really more for geeks trying to get them most out of their batteries. Normal people just use their phones until they run low, then complain about it. Your solution helps geeks, but provides no motivation for MS to implement it.
2. Re:Sandboxing, energy use, damaged goods by tepples · 2010-11-30 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Users clearly don't have the expertise, so like with the OLPC you end up with a vendor doing it for the user. That's what the App stores are.
  Ideally, one would be able to combine apps and ACLs from among several app stores. Android (except AT&T) is like this; iOS, Windows Phone 7, and the game consoles are not.
Apple may have copied Microsoft by tepples · 2010-11-30 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why would they copy Apple in this area?
One might guess that Apple copied Microsoft. The App Store rate structure ($99/yr to develop on a device that you purchased, plus a 30% cut of sales) is almost word-for-word copied from App Hub (formerly XNA Creators Club) and Xbox Live Indie Games.
C++ to Java? by tepples · 2010-11-30 06:05 · Score: 1

Get a BlackBerry - then you don't need to jailbreak in the first place, as you're able to install whatever you want
As long as the developer has paid the $20 fee. (Unsigned apps apparently cannot make SSL connections.) This is less than Apple's iPhone fee, for example. But BlackBerry runs only Java. What's the easiest way to port the business logic of an application written in C++ or Objective-C to the Java virtual machine, and then update the Java version when the C++ version changes or vice versa?
1. Re:C++ to Java? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2010-11-30 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  The fee is waived, as is the fee for submitting apps to app world if you do decide to distribute through that channel channels. I'm not sure how long that will continue for, but it's been at least a month since it started. But as you said, it's not an unreasonable price - especially considering that if you don't pay the Apple fee, you can't develop for the platform at all (as opposed to being limited in what you can do).
  
  But BlackBerry runs only Java. What's the easiest way to port the business logic of an application written in C++ or Objective-C to the Java virtual machine, and then update the Java version when the C++ version changes or vice versa?
  True, though this is also true for Android isn't it? (albeit java-that-isn't-java) Frankly, a lot of problems come up when people try to do direct ports of iOS apps -- it looks and acts like a limited functionality bad port (which too many people attribute to platform shortcomings); without ever taking advantage of the flexible platform integration that RIM offers.
  That being said, you did specifically say business logic and not UI. Obviously there's no good answer here - you'd need to maintain two versions because you're on two different platforms. On the other hand, if you fully separate your core business logic out from your UI, you could maintain a shared version between Android and BlackBerry. (On the other hand... if iOS weren't so restrictive, you'd have a JVM available for you there too ;)
  The only other path that I'm aware of is to move your business logic out to a server component - not viable in all cases (real time games, for example), but it is a good option in many situations.
2. Re:C++ to Java? by tepples · 2010-11-30 11:03 · Score: 1
  But BlackBerry runs only Java. What's the easiest way to port the business logic of an application written in C++ or Objective-C to the Java virtual machine
  this is also true for Android isn't it?
  Android runs Dalvik (pseudo-Java), but it also runs native code. So an app can use a pseudo-Java UI with C++ business logic, shared with Windows, Mac, Linux, and iOS version.
  
  On the other hand, if you fully separate your core business logic out from your UI
  Model-view-controller and other multitier architectures are exactly what I was talking about. For example, when I was into GBA homebrew, I was compiling the GBA and PC versions of a game from the same source tree, with different input, sound, and video routines connected to the same game logic. Each version had a main loop that looked like this:
  
  Read player input
  Run the (platform-independent) game model to advance it by one time quantum (16.7 ms). This handles physics and other object behaviors.
  Render video
  Play sounds
  If game not over go to 1
  But this breaks down when your target platforms don't share a language in which to write step 2.
  
  The only other path that I'm aware of is to move your business logic out to a server component
  Which would make the app fail when it can't connect to the Internet, such as use on an Archos device, an iPod touch, or an iPad with Wi-Fi, or on an airplane. By that time, one might as well write a web application.
3. Re:C++ to Java? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2010-12-01 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Model-view-controller and other multitier architectures are exactly what I was talking about. -snip- But this breaks down when your target platforms don't share a language in which to write step 2.
  Sure, but that's stating what I already said above isn't it? In an MVC architecture, there's no way to share code across iOS and BBOS. (It seems like you knew that already, so I'm not sure why you asked ;) On the other hand, with a posix-compliant QNX-based BBOS waiting in the wings, I suspect you'll be able to move your C++ code there as well for future devices.
  I actually wasn't aware that you could use C++ to develop for iOS; I had assumed Objective-C was required.
  All in all, though, it seems unwise to ignore the smartphone with the largest (or second-largest) market share when determining your target platforms. Even in such cases as this, where you'd need to maintain a separate implementation for the short term.
some corporation may want to unlock for overseas u by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-11-30 06:09 · Score: 1

some corporation may want to unlock even if it's just for overseas use. As getting a sim over can be $1000's + less if you need to use data.
Re:Awesome! by mujadaddy · 2010-11-30 06:39 · Score: 2, Funny

This is about Windows Phone 7, not Opera. ;)

--
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Read between the lines. by Lashat · 2010-11-30 06:40 · Score: 1

Seriously, slashdot users are supposed to be savvy. Obviously, some are NOT savvy enough to understand what is really being said in this story. Corporate is just a replacement for users, but it makes the jailbreak sound so much more robust, safe, and official. Welcome to marketing speak for your jailbreaking apps.

--
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Re:If a tree falls on an iphone in the forest..... by mark72005 · 2010-11-30 07:58 · Score: 1

Why root a Windows phone, why not just get an android phone to begin with?

I know... most Windows Phone users will have been issued the device from work, or be novice users who didn't know what operating system the phone had on it. But still.
umm by ProfessorKaos64 · 2010-11-30 08:12 · Score: 1, Informative

It's Windows Phone 7, not "Windows 7 Phone"...you think slashdot would get that right.
So does iPhone jailbreak... by SuperKendall · 2010-11-30 09:25 · Score: 1

If this is not a jailbreak than neither are the iPhone jailbreaks, with those you use the same developer tools also...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Very Bistute by SuperKendall · 2010-11-30 09:28 · Score: 1

I've decided to make up a new word, Bistute, for an observation that the person writing probably thought was Astute, but instead is Bollocks.
It's all about routing users through their respective App Stores, which allow them to have complete control over the platform
Then how do you explain both Apple and Microsoft providing hooks to use device features from the open web, where anyone can charge for a web application if they like?
If nothing else, it invalidates your assertion that they have "complete control" over the platform when they have a means of very open-ended access.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Have you tried Blackberry development? by SuperKendall · 2010-11-30 09:30 · Score: 1

Have you looked through the Blackberry API at all? It's pretty unpleasant compared with any of the more modern systems - either iOS, Android, or WP7.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Have you tried Blackberry development? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2010-11-30 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Have you looked through the Blackberry API at all? It's pretty unpleasant compared with any of the more modern systems - either iOS, Android, or WP7.
  I'm familiar with it (see sig). I don't find it unpleasant to work with, though to be fair I'm also not yet as familiar with the others -- so I've no basis for comparison other than vanilla j2me.
  Most of the issues I have are common to all major platforms (except win7, since it's new): new functionality introduced in later SDK versions that is never made available to earlier versions, requiring me to do dual implementations of that functionality (once using the SDK,a nd once substituting for the SDK).
Re:If a tree falls on an iphone in the forest..... by ozmanjusri · 2010-11-30 10:24 · Score: 1

Ah, the obligatory "this isn't news" first post.
It's more on topic this time though.
On Android, all you need to do to is tap the "USB Debugging" button in "settings and your phone is your own to do as you please with. Tools like App Inventor will help even non-geeks develop and load their own apps onto the phone.
Microsoft's new phone OS isn't downright bad, like their previous attempts. It's just not that interesting either, effective enough, but a little bland and corporate-y. Probably very well aligned to their target market, but there's no surprise that their nod towards openness is also bland and corporate-y.

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Why can't I load new software on my refrigerator? by Brannon · 2010-11-30 10:33 · Score: 1

It's mine, I own it!!!