Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 7 Phone Gets Jailbreak Tool

Posted by CmdrTaco on 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."

19 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Re:If a tree falls on an iphone in the forest..... by windcask · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ah, the obligatory "this isn't news" first post. I've come to love you so...

  2. Not a jailbreak by The+MAZZTer · · 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 tdyer · · 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. It's an API! by eldavojohn · · 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 · · 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 Microlith · · 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:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  5. I'm totally shocked. by MrCrassic · · 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...

  6. Re:Huh by windcask · · 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...

  7. Re:Running developed apps directly on the phone? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · 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 ;)

  8. Re:Misfeature by Ephemeriis · · 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
  9. Re:Huh by Microlith · · 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.

  10. Re:Huh by Missing.Matter · · 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.

  11. Re:Running developed apps directly on the phone? by Microlith · · 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.

  12. Re:Huh by wvmarle · · 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.

  13. Re:Huh by Microlith · · 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.

  14. Gap between 100 and 500 by tepples · · 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?

  15. Apple may have copied Microsoft by tepples · · 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.

  16. Re:Awesome! by mujadaddy · · 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