Slashdot Mirror


Windows Phone Unlock Tool Goes Official

judgecorp writes "A tool to unlock (or 'jailbreak' if you like) Windows Phone devices is now available with Microsoft's blessing. ChevronWP7 Labs was withdrawn at Microsoft's request a year ago, but is back now, allowing users to run any app on their phones for a cost of $9."

118 comments

  1. I would have had first post by dyingtolive · · Score: 2

    But Microsoft withdrew it a year ago.

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    1. Re:I would have had first post by dyingtolive · · Score: 1, Troll

      Shit, I actually got first post. I guess I get downmodded now, right? :(

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    2. Re:I would have had first post by grcumb · · Score: 2

      Shit, I actually got first post. I guess I get downmodded now, right? :(

      No, but you owe us $9.00.

      sincerely,
      The Slashdot App Store.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    3. Re:I would have had first post by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      you are about to be sued by apple for use of "app" and "store" in the same sentence with out the words apple, ios, mac, or itunes fallowed by a (TM).

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    4. Re:I would have had first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good writing. I think it's very helpful for all.
      Read more

  2. Seriously? by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's sad when Microsoft is more forward thinking than Apple isn't it.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:Seriously? by nepka · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Microsoft has always been. Windows is practically open platform and the mobile versions have always been too. Not in the open source sense, but users are free to install and do what they want. Apple is the only company that wants to control that.

    2. Re:Seriously? by mr1911 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not so much forward thinking as trying to do whatever it takes to catch up in the market.

      I doubt Microsoft would take such an action if their phone and apps store commanded the same market share as Apple's.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      makes it even more strange that microsoft is letting someone else make money on something they could/should have included from the start?

    4. Re:Seriously? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has always had a more open ecosystem for their OS both on the desktop and on phones than apple ever was. It's just sad they went more closed with wp7 since.winmo was so open (both in respects to installing anything you wanted and in using a huge variety of languages to create apps).

    5. Re:Seriously? by Desler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why? WinMo allowed you to install what you wanted without having to use an app store and to create apps you could use anything language that could be used for regular windows development. Apple's marketshare and app store success is the reason wp7 is more locked down.

    6. Re:Seriously? by nepka · · Score: 2

      Well, isn't that similarly true for every app? On mobile phones and desktop too.

      Microsoft does actually have their own version too, it's what developers buy and it costs $99/year. It does come with extras, like the right to publish your apps in the store.

    7. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Does it? How? I thought that any Android phone has this little switch in the settings about .apks from outside the market. Oh, it does. And there's no 'PAY NOW' button! My god, how did I miss this? ...

    8. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF?

      If you want to install an unsigned app on Android, it's a checkbox away.

      This has nothing to do with signed bootloaders, which are limited to Motorola and a few HTC models...

      And I say this as somebody who LIKE Windows Phone, loves its interface, is impressed with what Microsoft has done with it, and is seriously considering it for the next phone (Which is admittedly a ways away, as I got a new Android just before Mango dropped, otherwise WP7 might have been in consideration then, too...)

    9. Re:Seriously? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BullFuckingShit. Very few android phones have unknown sources blocked and all those can have apps installed in other ways.

      When I can do a git of the Windows phone code, then it is starting to get close.

    10. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does it? How? I thought that any Android phone has this little switch in the settings about .apks from outside the market. Oh, it does. And there's no 'PAY NOW' button! My god, how did I miss this? ...

      Silly me for rooting my Android phone to run a tethering app.

    11. Re:Seriously? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Go on, I'd love to hear how you would make that argument.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    12. Re:Seriously? by ackthpt · · Score: 0

      It's sad when Microsoft is more forward thinking than Apple isn't it.

      Pfft. Microsoft is desperate to get into the "Smart Phone" market. They're so far out of the running I'm surprised they aren't having a "2-for-1" sale.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    13. Re:Seriously? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That is a lot different than installing an unapproved app. Take a look at how that tether works for starters.

    14. Re:Seriously? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Not so much forward thinking as trying to do whatever it takes to catch up in the market.

      I doubt Microsoft would take such an action if their phone and apps store commanded the same market share as Apple's.

      Yeah, next thing you know, they'll put a giant Windows Phone in Times Square, or something else nearly as tacky.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    15. Re:Seriously? by nepka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Losing to what? Windows market share has been really stable for like 15 years. OSX has gained some market share, but even that is tiny compared to Windows (especially outside US). Linux market share has always been around 0.5% and isn't changing anytime soon. Windows has so large market share (over 90%) that they really cannot get it much higher.

    16. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad when Microsoft is more forward thinking than Apple isn't it.

      You call addressing one of the largest demographics on the entire planet and figuring out a way to charge them another "fee" for the "freedom" of breaking their phones forward thinking?

      I guess that mandatory Windows Live registration and the shit-ton of user info they'll harvest from this...I'm certain they wouldn't consider that yet another revenue stream, right? Naaah, I'm sure they'll just give that away...

      If pulling revenue streams out of your ass is what "forward thinking" has become, then yeah, I'd say Microsoft nailed it.

    17. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fact that MS was forward-thinking enough to purchase technology companies that were MORE forward-thinking than they were, shows that they were actually pretty forward-thinking to begin with! ::facepalm::

    18. Re:Seriously? by nepka · · Score: 0

      You cant git Android code either. You need to be part of their manufacturers circle and it costs lots of money.

    19. Re:Seriously? by lexman098 · · Score: 2

      Microsoft has been losing market share over the past decade or so precisely because it was not forward thinking! If you disagree, what other explanation do you have?

      "Forward thinking" doesn't necessarily translate to "ability to predict what's most profitable". So what if they couldn't predict that people wouldn't give a shit if a device was locked down and expensive as hell as long as it was shiny and hip? They're "forward thinking" in the sense that they're open to people using their software in unintended ways.

    20. Re:Seriously? by imric · · Score: 2

      Cyanogen isn't using Android?

      What next, you going to claim they are stealing the code?

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    21. Re:Seriously? by nepka · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Google already C&D'd and would had sued them for the parts they could. I'm sure they would kill it completely if it was possible (ie., they wouldn't have Linux licenses they have to follow).

    22. Re:Seriously? by arunce · · Score: 1

      As an opensource user I must agree with you.

    23. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any? I practically had to jailbreak my Motorola Atrix to allow third party software. Either Motorola or AT&T removed that option from the stock ROM.

      It wasn't hard, but I'm sure it isn't hard to do the same thing on Windows phones to by pass this app.

    24. Re:Seriously? by MrHanky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, losing market share. What I find funny is that Windows 7 caught up to Windows XP's user share (according to StatCounter) in just six months more than the iPad used to catch up with Linux's (both happening pretty much at the same time, around these days). That's with Microsoft supposedly losing and the iPad supposedly heralding the post-PC era. I'd love to be losing like Microsoft.

    25. Re:Seriously? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html

      That page sure disagrees with you.

    26. Re:Seriously? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Now you are really going off the deepend. The only thing google did was get them to stop distributing the GAPPS bundle. That is it.

    27. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh*

      Microsoft's one and only business plan:
      Do anything to establish market share; give away the OS, turn a blind eye to piracy, whatever it takes... then, once you have screwed the opposition, screw the users.
      Microsoft's desktop OS is copy protected, Apple's is not (still, even though it now runs on the same Intel-based hardware as Windows), and, ironically, Microsoft would be nowhere without piracy.

      It's sad when Slashdot users have such short memories.

    28. Re:Seriously? by MrHanky · · Score: 3, Informative

      Christ. Here's the Git repo and download instructions. Google did ask CyanogenMod to stop distributing its Google apps (Market, etc.), but not Android itself. You can download those apps separately, and I'm sure Google could restrict those devices from using Market if they tried. Perhaps your mother should have taught you not to lie.

    29. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How is this shit 'informative'?
      Moderators, get a clue or leave the moderating to people who even if they haven't been round the block have at least rounded the first corner.

    30. Re:Seriously? by nepka · · Score: 0

      And why was that necessary?

    31. Re:Seriously? by errandum · · Score: 2

      Actually, I saw some study on why the growth of mac os x didn't mean the decline of windows... Most people that own a mac still boot into windows sometimes and/or have a windows machine somewhere that they use to do those things mac os x can't (like play games or open highly formatted word documents).

      I'm a prime example, in my houshold we own 3 macs, but I'm currently typing from a windows machine (:

      So, yeah, I agree that windows isn't loosing it's spot anytime soon, unless they decide that windows 8 won't be backward compatible and a closed platform at the same time (or something like that).

    32. Re:Seriously? by Imbrondir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a horrible day for software freedom in general when Microsoft gets applauded for charging you 9$ to install applications on a device that you already own.

    33. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was always confused as to why MS locked their platform down in WP7. It seemed the only thing they had running for them was an open platform and a bunch of apps from WM. Then they created a walled garden and changed the APIs, starting back at zero. Granted, with iOS and Android they were in for a fight, but come on... 12% to 3% marketshare since it's introduction.

    34. Re:Seriously? by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Microsoft has been losing market share over the past decade or so precisely because it was not forward thinking!

      I suggest you spend some time at research.microsoft.com

      If you disagree, what other explanation do you have?

      It is hard to maintain a near monopoly. Earnings per share are up about 5x in the last decade. They ain't doing too bad.

    35. Re:Seriously? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Because GAPPS which is not part of android, and is something google requires you to get a license for. It would be like if they bundled flash with the OS.

      Are you really this dense?

    36. Re:Seriously? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has always been. Windows is practically open platform and the mobile versions have always been too.

      WP7 was not an open platform until today (hence why we have TFA). So, wrong.

    37. Re:Seriously? by Methos137 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No one gives a shit about the source. We care about being able to run our own apps on it. In this sense, android allows it just as easy as windows does, with apple saying "no sir, go f yerself, this is our empire". No one mentioned it being open source, just being open to allowing you to run what you want. Now get off your code cave troll and go back to your git repository.

    38. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 7 != Windows Phone 7

    39. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean its better for apple to deny an app on a political whim? Or just because it might compete with them? Fuckin Faggot Fan boi...

    40. Re:Seriously? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Moderators? On slashdot?
      Those guys are lucky they can handle the inappropriate language, spam posts, and stuff that will get them arrested. Everything else is information, misinformation, or more likely, opinion. They don't mess with those.

      Yes, microsoft has done some messed up things. They are a large successful company so that's a given.

      On the other hand, they've done lots of development and innovation. Lots of slashdotters would never admit to that, but the record stands.

      Microsoft has definitely bought companies for their tech/patents. Well duh... If you have this bright idea of something cool and you find out someone else beat you to it, but the market is still wide open you have some choices.
      You can give up and leave, but that never makes you any money.
      You can develop your own version, but might suffer a total smackdown in a lawsuit. Either way the lawyers will bork everything and charge you more arms and legs than you want to think about.
      Or the third option. If the other guy is small, buy him out, get all his expertise and patents, and get better on the dev side than option one, and with regards to option two, it's probably cheaper, and will need far less asprin.

      Of course, if you like, we can list the bad and stupid things done by lots of companies, but if we just limit it to computer (s/w & h/w) companies, the list will still take days to type, and that's just the overview.

      Love or Hate MS/Apple/etc, I really don't care.

    41. Re:Seriously? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Not really. It was Microsoft that was taken to court for hiding aspects of its API to keep a competitive edge over everyone else. They've used more closed formats to lock you into their systems where as Apple has even open sourced their ALAC format.

      MS knows they won't stop jail breaking so they're just trying to profit from it by charging you for the tool. I expect them to still shit their pants if someone makes a free alternative.

    42. Re:Seriously? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Windows mobile was a desktop OS put on a mobile phone and it sucked which is why it wasn't popular. Yes it allowed you to install what you want but one bonus against dozens of negatives didn't help. His point still stands that MS is playing catch up. WP7 was locked down like Apple's iphone. Now they're trying to be like Google and be ok with jail breaking but of course they're charing for that benefit.

    43. Re:Seriously? by eht · · Score: 1

      It doesn't look like Microsoft is charging you 9$ to install this application, it looks like a third party is charging you 9$ to do it and Microsoft doesn;t have a problem with either the application or charging you 9$. If you want to write your own app to do the same thing and release it for free, go right ahead.

    44. Re:Seriously? by colesw · · Score: 1

      Well except for the fact they aren't charging you for the tool, a third party is. So I doubt they'd care if someone else makes an alternative free program.

    45. Re:Seriously? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Actually this is limited to 10 out of market apps, android has no such limitation. Also this is a pay for feature, again android does not charge for this.

      So you are wrong even with this new notion of "open".

    46. Re:Seriously? by Tharsman · · Score: 1

      Apple is the only company that wants to control that.

      And Nintendo.
      And Sony.
      And Motorola (and Google claims they will be allowed to "just be".)
      And Microsoft when it comes to the XBox.

      But yea other than them, only Apple.

    47. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 7 != Windows Phone 7

      They obviously weren't talking about Windows Phone 7 since WP7 is only a bit over a year old so it couldn't possibly have been losing marketshare over the past decade.

    48. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the new technology it picked up over the years was either bought or stolen (e.g., Stacker) from other companies that were, in fact, forward-thinking.

      That's what most of those large companies do, they buy individual technologies and package them into a full product. Apple did it with their OSX kernel, with pretty much all the technology in the iphone, with Siri, etc... Google did it with Android, AdSense, Picasa, etc...

    49. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes it worse is the old Windows Mobile, while not being competitive at all with current smartphones, did allow you to install anything you wanted. Then they decided with Windows Phone 7 to go with the lock down approach. That and the incredibly slow development pace led me to just go from Mobile 6.1 to Android, and I haven't looked back. And I am a .NET developer who actually wrote some programs for the older Windows Mobile platform.

    50. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a horrible day for software freedom in general when Microsoft gets applauded for charging you 9$ to install applications on a device that you already own.

      It's a device to unlock to side-load applications without a developer account, like an officially sanctioned jailbreaking service. Suggesting that it's charging you 9$ to install applications is either you not understanding what this is about or just deliberately trolling.

    51. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that when it comes to devices this tool for side-loading on WP7 phones is consistent across all of them, on the Android platform it depends on what device you have as to what lengths you have to go to if you want to side-load apps. So yes, Android is more open but Android is useless without a device to run it on and at that point Android's openness can be severely hamstrung by the restrictions in the device, so it is inconsistent or fragmented.

    52. Re:Seriously? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I should have clarified, but I meant "losing market share" in the home and developer markets, specifically. I was not implying that Microsoft was going broke, or anything of the sort.

      As for home desktops, OS X and Linux have made significant inroads. Is Windows still dominant? Sure. For now. But you have to admit there have been trends: IE is seriously behind the curve when it comes to everyone else, to the point that people are even ceasing to even care about supporting Microsoft's browsers on the web anymore. (I know... I am a professional web developer and I catch the business buzz going around.) It started with the popular campaign to abolish IE 6 but has continued since 7 and 8 have only been incrementally better, and even IE9 does not support some features that others have for at least 2 years.

      More and more, people are using Google Docs and Open Office instead of Word. Why? Word is grossly overpriced and you can get the same functionality elsewhere for almost nothing.

      By now, Apache and MySQL have long been dominant over IIS and SQL Server in the Web server world... which is a significant portion of IT space today. Heck, some claim that even Apache and MySQL are starting to look long in the tooth.

      It's nice that Microsoft has been able to weather the storm and survive even though other companies are besting them in so many areas that they once dominated. I have nothing personal against Microsoft. Heck, I was a Microsoft developer for most of my development history.

      But "forward-thinking?" Maybe once. I don't see it today.

    53. Re:Seriously? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      As for home desktops, OS X and Linux have made significant inroads.

      I don't see much evidence that Linux has made any kind of inroad and OSX market share is still not up to the levels it was when Microsoft started being thought of as a monopoly. Depending on whether you count iPads Microsoft's market share is 85-90% range.

      On the browser side, no question they have genuinely lost market share down to about 40%. That still makes them about 70% larger than either webkit or Gecko based browser families. And that's one of Microsoft's areas where they are doing the worst.

      On the Apache side, Apache always had larger market share. IIS didn't start showing up in statistics until about 1996 and by then Apache was already at about 25% taking share from NCSA. Around 2000 when the early servers were gone, Apache was never below 50% market share and IIS never above 30%. If you want to look at an up and comer in the market it would be nginx.

      As for MySQL everything is a few years out of date but MySQL is in 3rd place with 50% of companies having deployed it in production and an additional 13% in development. SQL Server, in 2nd place is around at 68% and 11% respectively. On the web, no question MySQL has much larger market share it is part of the original LAMP stack like apache.

      But "forward-thinking?" Maybe once. I don't see it today.

      I pointed you to their research group. Take a look. For that matter the .NET compiler is the most sophisticated compiler on the market used by a major platform. Their kernel is excellent and continues to be innovative.... I see lots of innovation, admittedly they are conservative and have a conservative user base but I think there is a lot of bright spots. Similar to IBM 20 years ago, lots of dead weight but lots of interesting innovations.

    54. Re:Seriously? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
      For the most part, you are only confirming what I have been saying. True enough, however: Apache always was ahead of MS in server space, and nginx is doing pretty well.

      "I pointed you to their research group. Take a look. For that matter the .NET compiler is the most sophisticated compiler on the market used by a major platform. Their kernel is excellent and continues to be innovative.... I see lots of innovation, admittedly they are conservative and have a conservative user base but I think there is a lot of bright spots. Similar to IBM 20 years ago, lots of dead weight but lots of interesting innovations."

      On this I have to disagree. It is hard to find reliable statistics related to development platforms, but there has been something of a mass exodus away from .net over the last 7 or 8 years, and I am one of them. Obviously this is only anecdotal evidence, still this is my observation:

      While there are still plenty of .NET jobs out there, IMHO that is mainly due to the massive base of existing applications. 10 years ago, admittedly MS Visual development tools were the hot things, and then came .NET... and they were immensely popular, for good reason. But that was then. I was an MS developer at that time, too, and I liked the tools very much.

      But after having used .NET for a while, I became familiar with some newer and different technologies (like Ruby and Rails for example), and after becoming somewhat familiar with them, I dropped .NET like a not potato. In comparison to Ruby development, I can no longer stand the constraints and limitations of .NET development. And I have a great many friends and colleagues who feel the same way.

      There are whole industries now being built around dynamic and functional languages that .NET cannot hope to match. In fact, we have seen .NET attempt to copy many of the same principles (MVC, for example) with some but limited success. Attempting to incorporate a form of Ruby into .NET met with failure: MS gave up on the attempt. (A friend of mine was among the early and senior developers involved with the IronRuby project.)

      I admit that I am no longer a .NET developer, nor do I desire to be one, so I am no authority on the subject. Nevertheless, my perception is that .NET progress has somewhat stagnated in recent years, and there has been a lot of attrition in the .NET ranks.

    55. Re:Seriously? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing 3 different topics:

      1) Is X innovative
      2) Is X popular
      3) Do you personally like X

      Your original claim was that Microsoft wasn't innovative. The .NET compiler is an example of heavy innovation in compiler design. That has nothing to do with it being popular, nor much to do with the criteria for which you like Ruby on Rails.

      As far as popularity, compiled languages & desktop applications are much less popular than they were 2 decades ago. Further desktop application development is extremely expensive, and most of the work is outsourced to the 3rd world at this point. There probably are far more .NET / Visual Studio developers now than 15 years ago, but fewer in the western world. That being said, Visual Studio is generally the market share leader in most areas. For example in PPM Microsoft Project Server 2010 put it in 1st place as far as sales for the PPM market.

      As far as dynamic languages and IDE's everyone has failed at that. There are no good IDE's for dynamic languages, that cross over to the static languages. IBM / Eclipse has the same problem, and remember IBM owns rational so they are even larger, as did Embarcadero (the old Borland people). However with F# Microsoft was able to extend their IDE to the functional paradigm which is a major success. Companies like Active State have been able to create useful dynamic IDE's but they are nothing like the static language ones. So you are pointing to a failure that everyone else has had as well.

      Now if you mean Rails is a better framework for development of light apps than Microsoft. .,.. I'd say most of the analysis that applies to Rails vs. J3EE and J2EE would apply to Rails vs. Microsoft offerings. There are plusses there are minuses of the two approaches, but Microsoft really doesn't play in the light space. When they did: VBScript and ActiveX were extremely impressive technologies. It looks like they are starting to step away from that with their new work in Javascript and Windows 8. Assuming this isn't vaporware I think you will see them step up strongly.

      Essentially for Microsoft to do what you would want regarding Ruby, they would fork Visual Basic further away from C#. That is not a technology or innovation problem they just don't want to create applications with no easy migration path. That's one of their strategic advantages vs. technologies like PowerBuilder.

    56. Re:Seriously? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "I think you are confusing 3 different topics: ..."

      No, I am not. The question was whether Microsoft was "forward thinking". That is what I was responding to. Not personal preference, but my opinion (and those of others) about how "forward thinking" it is.

      "The .NET compiler is an example of heavy innovation in compiler design. That has nothing to do with it being popular, nor much to do with the criteria for which you like Ruby on Rails."

      Nonsense. The .NET compiler was an example of heavy innovation 11 years ago, which is the point I was making. The "criteria" for which I "like" Ruby on Rails is directly relevant to the discussion, because those criteria are: (1) it is an implementation of a newer-technology, dynamic language, and (2) it is being actively and rapidly improved by a growing user base. There is no "confusion" there.

      "Further desktop application development is extremely expensive, and most of the work is outsourced to the 3rd world at this point"

      That is false on both counts. First, desktop application development is cheaper than ever due to open-source tools (unless you are developing with Microsoft tools, of course), and second, while outsourcing was big for many years, that trend has already begun to reverse. So for someone speaking about "new and innovative" things, you are surprisingly behind the times.

      "There are no good IDE's for dynamic languages, that cross over to the static languages. IBM / Eclipse has the same problem, and remember IBM owns rational so they are even larger, as did Embarcadero (the old Borland people)."

      Again, complete nonsense. The open-source Radrails (now part of Aptana Studio 3), which was built on Eclipse, has been a very successful IDE for Ruby and Rails development. As have NetBeans and several others.

      Are you saying that huge companies like Microsoft and IBM can't build effective IDEs for dynamic languages, but that Open Source developers can? Hmmm...

      There isn't any particular problem with creating IDEs for dynamic languages. Most who develop with dynamic languages -- most of those who aren't beginners, anyway -- simply prefer not to use them.

      "Now if you mean Rails is a better framework for development of light apps than Microsoft..."

      What do you define as a "light app"? Twitter? Revolution Health? YellowPages.com? IBM Global Services is building enterprise applications for its clients using Ruby, and sometimes Rails. And so is ThoughtWorks. Here is a partial list of organizations that use not just Ruby but Rails for many of their enterprise-level applications.

      "When they did: VBScript and ActiveX were extremely impressive technologies."

      Yes, they were. 11 years ago.

      "Essentially for Microsoft to do what you would want regarding Ruby, they would fork Visual Basic further away from C#. That is not a technology or innovation problem they just don't want to create applications with no easy migration path."

      Not at all. They made great (if difficult) progress with IronRuby, to the point of actually producing some alpha releases that were largely compliant with Ruby specs. Then they just dumped it. My friend who worked on the project could not give me an actual technical reason for their decision: apparently it was just something Microsoft decided not to pursue any longer.

    57. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do anything to establish market share; give away the OS, turn a blind eye to piracy, whatever it takes... then, once you have screwed the opposition, screw the users.

      Yeah Windows, Visual Studio, XBox, etc... really screwing the users there aren't they.

      Microsoft's desktop OS is copy protected, Apple's is not (still, even though it now runs on the same Intel-based hardware as Windows), and, ironically, Microsoft would be nowhere without piracy.

      Right, so the unprotected OS still has a comparatively tiny marketshare and even with the added difficulty of circumventing copy protection Windows is still more prevalent.

  3. Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ago by Superken7 · · Score: 2

    I would not have expected this sort of news from Microsoft a decade ago. Then again, maybe we are getting too used to Apple.

    I think this is a nice move by MS :)

  4. Worst Possible Option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if you're in the market for a new phone and want neither the assurance that all apps have been checked for quality nor the ability to freely load whatever app you want, have we got a phone for you. By combining the negative aspects of both of our competitors, and then slapping a $9 price tag on it, we here at Microsoft feel confident we've created a phone that pleases absolutely nobody!

    1. Re:Worst Possible Option by nepka · · Score: 3, Informative

      1) App market works just like before
      2) The $9 price tag isn't from Microsoft, it's from the guy who made the unlocker. He is selling it.

    2. Re:Worst Possible Option by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      Without threat of him being shut down by microsoft, and presumably if they're sanctioning it there's some trick on the corporate side or something. They can probably sell a US government version where the unlocker won't work or things along those lines.

    3. Re:Worst Possible Option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they're paying royalties to MS. It was free but MS shut it down. Now, under new agreement, he takes payment, and then pays MS.

    4. Re:Worst Possible Option by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      WP7 isn't really targeted at the government; it's missing a lot of certifications for things like that which Windows Mobile had and Blackberry has. It's intended for the mass-market, and this works well for that.

      However, if they wanted to create a modified ROM that didn't allow installing unsigned applications, that would be quite easy indeed. The "am I unlocked?" setting is just a registry value. It's probably only checked a few places in the code. Modify those checks so they always return "false" or modify the app-installer so that it only ever allows app packages with the marketplace signature, and you'd be fine.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  5. It's a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You pay the $9 to run your own apps on the phone, right. But only atmost 5 of them. Yes, there is a limit on the number of apps you are allowed to run on your very own phone. And you have to pay for that. Pathetic.

    1. Re:It's a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for my mistake, actual limit is 10 apps. Doesn't stop the ridicule.

      http://www.1800pocketpc.com/chevronwp7-labs-will-allow-users-to-sideload-apps-to-windows-phone-coming-soon/20313/

    2. Re:It's a scam by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is honestly offensive. Microsoft, you can do what you like, but don't piss in my face and call it rain.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  6. Windows is to big for app store lock down anit tru by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Windows is to big for app store lock down anit trust laws is one thing.

    But the app store system should only block apps that can damage the system not adult games / pron apps.

  7. What does it not do that the previous version did? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    It if allows unchecked code, it doesn't appear to be that much different than the previous version aside from version differences.

    Hopefully it has no restrictions on what code can be done, thus being as full of an unlock as the previous one was. Otherwise it still makes ChevronWP7 another "embrace, extend, extinguish" job.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  8. Gateway by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

    If I can run unsigned code on this guy I can do anything, including find a way to get Linux on it.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
  9. Who cares... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who wants to "jailbreak" a windows phone? Big deal.

  10. A note about the group that worked on it by gcnaddict · · Score: 2

    Rafael Rivera generally tends to hold a good deal of trust and clout amongst Windows enthusiasts (shock and awe that there's such a crowd, I know) in that he's known specifically for thoroughly investigating a product. He always produces a high quality service, product, workaround, etc. for whatever his project happens to be, and has provided many of the safe patches that unlock hidden functionality during previous Windows alpha and beta releases.

    His involvement in this project and in other general Windows reverse-engineering gigs in the past leads me to believe that ChevronWP7 is a solid and safe release. The fact that Microsoft endorsed this is not at all a surprise.

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
  11. Nine dollars by Flector · · Score: 1

    The main thing I use my Android phone for is playing chess against the computer while recumbent on the couch. Nine dollars seems a bit ridiculous.

  12. Re:In other words... by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 1

    That's basically it. They also knew this would hit the tech news sites, for that free advertising.

  13. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You would not have expected Microsoft a decade ago to release an open operating system while Apple released a vertically integrated and closed down market?

    Microsoft is many things, but bending over backwards to let anything run on their systems (including malware) has been one of the greatest strengths and weaknesses since the beginning.

  14. THIS IS MADNESS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A company run by suits NOT making a fuck-tarded move?! THIS IS INSANITY!

  15. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by Riceballsan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft has never been the direction apple is. While shutting out competition was always a strong stance of theirs. Preventing competition from running on their OS or any devices they run has never been a high priority. I do have to admit, Xbox is probably the most independent developer friendly console (out of the top 3 competitors of course), Microsoft has never attempted to discourage people from using any software on windows. That is kinda how MS kicked apples ass back in the day. (Macs were strongly against allowing competition to design hardware, Microsoft encoraged a huge compeating pricewar to drive down hardware prices and boost software sales.)

  16. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically, every WP7 device is a Zune.

  17. Not "Unlock" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just want to point this out: "Unlocking" in this context refers to allowing phones to be used on different carriers. For example, an AT&T phone will not generally work on other GSM carriers; unlocking it allows it to connect to T-Mobile (provided you also put in a T-Mobile sim card). "Root" or "Jailbreak" would be fine, but "Unlock" is not. People do already get confused by this, so please don't use that term this way. Thanks.

  18. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by matrim99 · · Score: 1

    That is kinda how MS kicked apples ass back in the day. (Macs were strongly against allowing competition to design hardware, Microsoft encoraged a huge compeating pricewar to drive down hardware prices and boost software sales.)

    sed s/MS/IBM

    FTFY

    --
    Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
  19. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by tepples · · Score: 1

    Microsoft encouraged the price war by being willing to license MS-DOS to any company that made a PC with a remotely IBM-compatible BIOS. IBM didn't want openness; in fact, it tried to charge back-royalties on ISA to anyone making MCA cards.

  20. Re:In other words... by tepples · · Score: 1

    But are there any WP7 devices sold in the United States that don't either A. cost more than my laptop or B. require a full-price subscription to a calling plan with more minutes in a month than I use in a year?

  21. In Soviet Apple by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

    Microsoft jailbreaks you!

    But seriously, this "jailbreak" is a Microsoft-sanctioned app that costs $9 and requires you to log-in to windows live... Doesn't sound like a jailbreak to me. Sounds like something that Microsoft should have BEEN OFFERING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    Whats that, we get to run whatever app we want on the computer we bought? THANKS MICROSOFT! Hey, it beats the $99 yearly fee to get a dev licence.
    Seriously? Do they not want people developing for their platform? (oh, that's right, they only want big companies. They don't care about hobbyists at all.)

    Is Windows 8 going to require a jailbreak to install homebrew too?!? Madness.
    I'm sick of defective by design and I'll not be celebrating some "features" that they finally enabled. Its my device. Let me use it already.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    1. Re:In Soviet Apple by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 0

      But seriously, this "jailbreak" is a Microsoft-sanctioned app that costs $9 and requires you to log-in to windows live... Doesn't sound like a jailbreak to me. Sounds like something that Microsoft should have BEEN OFFERING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      Paying $9 to be able to run whatever shit you like compares remarkably favourably with Apple's "fuck you" policy towards unsigned apps, in which you can do it if you want but only if you hack the damn device, and then expect it to break the next time iOS updates. It doesn't make them the best by a long shot (BlackBerry and Android win that handily) but it's reasonable. At least, unlike Apple, they give you a legitimate way to do it.

    2. Re:In Soviet Apple by LiroXIV · · Score: 1

      Whats that, we get to run whatever app we want on the computer we bought? THANKS MICROSOFT! Hey, it beats the $99 yearly fee to get a dev licence.

      Ubuntu 12.04 Gold Pass: run up to 10 packages not from the Software Centre: only $10

    3. Re:In Soviet Apple by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make them the best by a long shot (BlackBerry and Android win that handily)

      Truth.

      At least, unlike Apple, they give you a legitimate way to do it.

      Neither should be acceptable.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    4. Re:In Soviet Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an extremist. The read world is not black/white (or ones and zeros). What Microsoft did here is laudable, stop trying to paint it as something bad because it isn't.

    5. Re:In Soviet Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither should be acceptable.

      Why? Because that's your world view? Given that - in spite of the prevalence of much less restrictive platforms - the world's most common smartphone runs a restricted platform that's proof that you're wrong and such a thing is and should remain acceptable. No-one's forcing anything on you, you have the right to choose so suggesting other people shouldn't have the right to choose a more restricted platform (which may or may not benefit from such restrictions) is just ignorant and small-minded.

  22. Re:In other words... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Wait, you mean they're doing something to sell their product?!

    God damn it, somebody call my Congressman - I won't put up with this shit where a company performs actions meant to increase the sale of their products!

  23. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    sed s/MS/IBM
    FTFY

    IBM was the hardware manufacturer, it was IBM who lost money when the hardware competitors came in, and MS that benefited.

  24. Re:What does it not do that the previous version d by cbhacking · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unfortunately, there's a barrier in Mango (whether you use the marketplace developer account dev-unlock, which has been available from day 1, or ChevronWP7 Labs which is essentially the same thing from the phone's perspective) that prevents apps from getting high-permission access (specificlaly, prevents opening a handle on a driver, which is the standard way to break out of the low-privilege app sandbox on WP7). To do this, an app needs to specify the "INTEROPSERVICES" capability in its manifest, and by default Mango blocks installing or running non-marketplace apps with this capability. NoDo and below did not - that's how people were able to do file browsers, registry editors, tethering apps, and so forth - but this restriction is part of Mango.

    You can still run some homebrew apps, including native code, but only with low permissions. While it's useful to know there's limits on what an app can do, I'd really like to be able to remove those limits on apps I trust. A webserver that demonstrates access to the full socket API, including TCP server sockets (the official API only has client sockets) is cool, but there's a lot more that you could do.

    Fortunately, there's a way around this restiction also built into the OS. The process of removing this restriction is called "interop-unlock" by the guys who discovered it, and is possible easily on LG phones (change the MaxUnsignedApp registry value to 300 or more using the built-in registry editor), possible on Samsung phones (instructions and app here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1271963), and difficult if possible at all on HTC phones (requires rolling back to pre-Mango, which isn't possible on new devices). No solution at all for Dell, Toshiba, or Nokia yet.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  25. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft encouraged openness and competition on the hardware front so they could sneak in the back door and obtain lock-in via software instead... It worked largely because at the time software was perceived as a very small cheap component of an expensive hardware bundle, especially when you could pirate the software.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  26. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by Microlith · · Score: 2

    This isn't an "open" system by any stretch of the imagination. It's basically charging people $9 for the ability to sideload software, something Android enables via a checkbox. The security systems remain 100% in force.

    I'd be impressed if it put the user in control of the security systems, rather than let Microsoft retain that control (oh, and if it were free and not $9.)

  27. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you're a retard.

  28. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up

    How is demanding 9$ for the "privilege" to install up to 10 unapproved apps anywhere close to "bending over backwards to let anything run on their systems"?

  29. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    Unforunately not all android devices have the checkbox. The HTC Aria on AT&T was one of them as well as some of the low-end motorola devices.

  30. Re:What does it not do that the previous version d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when does Toshiba have any WP 7 phones?

    And speaking of since when, in the year since WP 7 was unveiled, there are FOUR new phones? FOUR phones after a year? And then only one from some carriers, like TMo? It works for Apple, but these aren't apples, these aren't even really mangos, they are, if you can bear it, moldy fruit! I think each time Google takes a shit another FOUR phones show up. And google is full of shit, you know?

  31. This will please about 4 people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are more people commenting on this than there are Win7 phones in the world. Who would want a second rate poorly supported (from an app perspective) phone when you can do all this on any android phone with more apps

  32. great...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh for goodness sake, they've been having so many performance problems they put a queuing system in.
    I've gone from 80 to 55 in the last 4 hours and now some a-hole posts it on slashdot so they can get slashdotted.
    thanks!

  33. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by Microlith · · Score: 1

    That's AT&T being a bunch of assholes though, not a matter of policy set by the OS vendor.

  34. Still disappointed with Windows Mobile 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually enjoyed writing applications on Windows Mobile 6 and I was surprised at how different it was with 7. First, attempting to charge me $99 dollars to be afforded the opportunity to write applications for their OS. Luckily I was still in a student status so it cost me nothing. (Reduces the number of applications allowed to load though from full payment. Only get 3 instead of 10 allowed home-brew apps.) I've really been turned off with the whole way many of these businesses are closing and controlling the application pools. I'm sure many others are in the same boat. Myself and others are less likely to write useful applications when limited. I got out of writing any mobile applications all together. They try to push the point that it provides added security and protects customers but it's all another layer of control and $$$ making. Sad...

  35. Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag by blarkon · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs designed the Mac so that it could only be opened by special tools. So it's more that Apple has "controlled the whole wigit" (with a brief period of licensing to clones when Jobs wasn't in charge) since then. The Apple II was open - but since then, not so much.

  36. unlocking vs jailbreaking by Mogusha · · Score: 1

    Aren't jailbreaking and unlocking different? Calibrating refers to being able to execute cystine programs on your phone, whereas unlocking allows one to use any carrier. I think this article is referring to jailbreaking.

    1. Re:unlocking vs jailbreaking by Mogusha · · Score: 1

      Stupid phone. Calibrating == jailbreaking.

    2. Re:unlocking vs jailbreaking by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Calibrating works just fine. To check or adjust your device until it performs correctly.

    3. Re:unlocking vs jailbreaking by Mogusha · · Score: 1

      I think you missunderstood the last post. I was refering to the word "Calibrating" in the parent. As it was posted using my phone autocorrect decided to change "jailbreaking" into "Calibrating". This change wasn't what I had intended, and, while admitedly, I should have checked the post to ensure that none of those really obvious substitutions was present, it was there and I attempted to make the post less obsfuscated. I suppose an assignment would have been more appropriate to help with understanding, or perhaps reposting the entirety of it, however, that may have resulted in more of the same errors decreasing readability and increasing my annoyance with my telephone.

  37. Clippy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like you're writing an ill-conceived flamebait post.

    Would you like help?

  38. 'unlock' or 'jailbreak' by Grismar · · Score: 1

    A tool to unlock (or 'jailbreak' if you like) Windows Phone devices

    I don't know if this is global or local parlance, but over here "unlock" generally refers to removing the SIM-lock from a locked phone, enabling the use of SIMs from any service provider. This is in most cases a breach of contract with the original service provider, unless the contract has since expired.

    Jailbreaking refers exclusively to the removal of any restrictions to the installation of applications. Granted, in most cases one has to jailbreak the phone to unlock it, since the unlocking software is generally nowhere to be found in app stores supported by the service provider - for obvious reasons. Whether or not jailbreaking is a breach of contract is up for discussion in some cases and clearly no breach in others.

    It seems to me that 'jailbreak' is the term to use here.