×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft To Disable Windows Phone 7 Unlocking

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the unlock-blocker dept.

Microsoft 237

Alex writes "In the first update to Windows Phone 7, Microsoft is planning to block ChevronWP7, which allowed users to unlock any retail Windows Phone 7 device for application side-loading without having to pay $99 per year for a WP7 marketplace account. The update, which is slated for release this month, will also introduce copy and paste functionality, among other improvements. ChevronWP7 was discontinued less than a week after its release about two months ago. ChevronWP7's three developers, Long Zheng, Rafael Rivera, and Chris Walsh were approached by Brandon Watson, Director of Developer Experience for Windows Phone 7, and decided to kill their app."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

237 comments

So how much did they get for this? (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855242)

So how much did they get for this?

Re:So how much did they get for this? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855306)

Unbroken kneecaps, unslashed tires, and a partially unburned-down house.

Re:So how much did they get for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34856166)

yeah, "partially"

RTA (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855396)

"Zheng, Rivera, and Walsh have said Microsoft wants them to become more involved with the shaping of the homebrew scene on the Windows Phone platform, but ChevronWP7 will not be the way to do so. In fact, the trio has a meeting with Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 team next week in Redmond, and they will be focusing on homebrew as well as stronger protection of WP7 developer intellectual property."

Re:RTA (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855418)

Translation: They were bought off.

Re:RTA (4, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855482)

No, no, no, no, no....you misunderstand. They were HIRED. Yes, hired, because of their "potential" to add to the company. Of course, MS hasn't figured out what their job descriptions will be, but still. Being hired for a job you don't go to is completely different than "bought off". Completely different. Really.

Re:RTA (4, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856264)

Presumably hired to patch any apparent 'exploits' they would have otherwise caught.

Not a big fan of this, but it is more than a shade better than Sony trying to sue their problems out of existence.

Re: RTA (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856346)

No, no, no, no, no....you misunderstand. They were HIRED. Yes, hired, because of their "potential" to add to the company. Of course, MS hasn't figured out what their job descriptions will be, but still. Being hired for a job you don't go to is completely different than "bought off". Completely different. Really.

Well, there's the Homer Simpson by-out, as precedent.

There's also a position in Ballmer's office for Chair Repairman. Probably masonry work there, too, for the damage to walls when he throws one.

Re:RTA (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855464)

I love the doublethink there; "and they will be focusing on homebrew as well as stronger protection of WP7 developer intellectual property."

It's one or the other kids. They were bought off.

Re:RTA (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855724)

So obviously Microsoft thinks that the future of mobile computing is that of entirely vendor-controlled console-style hardware.

Thanks but fuck you Microsoft.

Re:RTA (4, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856286)

More like they *want* the future to be vendor-controlled. They always hoped that, but never thought the consumers to be *that* self-destructive until Apple essentially did it. Now they hope they can ape Apple's success on that front.

Re:RTA (1, Troll)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855500)

stronger protection of WP7 developer intellectual property

Translation: Kill the application and we won't sue. Otherwise by the time we're through with you, you'll wish you've never even conceived of this application. Sure we might not win, be we'll make sure the stress induced shave a good five or ten years off your natural life expectancy.

Re:RTA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855878)

"Zheng, Rivera, and Walsh have said Microsoft wants them to become more involved with the shaping of the homebrew scene on the Windows Phone platform, but ChevronWP7 will not be the way to do so. In fact, the trio has a meeting with Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 team next week in Redmond, and they will be focusing on homebrew as well as stronger protection of WP7 developer intellectual property."

Translation: they'll be sitting at home drinking beer they bought with the money they got by selling their threat to "WP7 intellectual property".

Nice gig if you can get it.

So... (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855244)

Who wants to bet it was intentional that this poison pill was put into the package that includes copy and paste?

Or even that copy and paste was held back for this reason?

Re:So... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855298)

You don't have to update.

I turned-off my PC's autoupdate after the last one killed my internet access. Had to do a rollback to before the update to restore the connection.

Re:So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855594)

Phones are a little bit different dumbass.
Updates can be and are often forced.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855618)

Not if you buy a good one dumbass. Heck, mine is not even running a vendor or carrier built OS.

Re:So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34856294)

But the phone we're discussing is the Windows phone... think about it for a second tard.

haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855250)

suckers they got ya

haha, what? (1, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855266)

So Microsoft charges you $100 bucks a year to access your phone's app store? Really?

That's so Ballmer.

Re:haha, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855282)

To publish in the store.

Re:haha, what? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855918)

To publish in the store.

Then why is this news, exactly? And I ask this as someone who wouldn't use a Windows phone even if they were giving them away.

Re:haha, what? (4, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855304)

Only if you're a developer. Apple charges the same fee, if I recall.

But don't let me get in the way of your anti-Microsoft ranting, informed or not.

Re:haha, what? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855334)

You should have to pay to put your app in the store, but NOT to release it to the wild. Users should be free to download any app from any website, and install it on their Macs or PC or Phones. For either MS or Apple to block this ability seems rather dictatorial.

Re:haha, what? (4, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855384)

It's called a "business strategy". You may think its either smart or foolish, but it's a strategy. No one said businesses had to act in a democratic way.

Re:haha, what? (3, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855414)

Exactly. Microsoft is positioning itself as a low-rent copy of Apple in the phone space. Say what you will, but it is a strategy.

Re:haha, what? (1, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855476)

It's called a "business strategy".

That's what he said: "dictatorial".

Seriously, in 2010, what is the difference between "business strategy" and "dictatorial"?

Re:haha, what? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855648)

Seriously, in 2010, what is the difference between "business strategy" and "dictatorial"?

2011?

Re:haha, what? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856270)

Seriously, in 2010, what is the difference between "business strategy" and "dictatorial"?

It depends on which company you're a fanboy of.

Re:haha, what? (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855532)

It's called a "business strategy". You may think its either smart or foolish, but it's a strategy. No one said businesses had to act in a democratic way.

And we as consumers have to make clear what we expect from businesses, punish the ones that act in was that disagree with our desires, and reward the ones that are better behaved. That's a consumer strategy. If the marketplace is any indication (Android taking over, Windows Phone 7 struggling), the market is speaking.

Re:haha, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855644)

Perhaps you'd like to direct us to the next meeting, or make sure we're on the mailing list. It's clear what consumers want from business: stuff, with enough acceptable headaches. People are sheep. No matter how much you explain to them that Nike makes their shoes with the blood of newborn babies, if Lebron or Kobe wears them and they're not $1000, people will buy them and Nike will keep making more. It takes a lot more than loud indignation to stop any company as large as Microsoft.

Re:haha, what? (4, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855670)

It's a dictatorial business strategy. Yes, it is evil. Open computing has changed our world dramatically for the better. And every phone company out there apparently wants to put a stop to that.

Re:haha, what? (4, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855502)

Users should be free to download any app from any website, and install it on their Macs or PC or Phones.

Where do you think botnets come from? Users who download and install software from websites that they shouldn't but they aren't smart enough to know the difference, or skilled enough to notice the data usage spikes.

You really don't want that kind of power on limited bandwidth cell networks. Remember the average person is an idiot.

Re:haha, what? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855578)

The average person will use the store, but you can still let others run their own code on their own devices. Note the lack of botnets made of android phones.

Re:haha, what? (-1, Troll)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855756)

In order to side load apps on most android phones you have to root the phone first.

That singular step alone will stop the average idiot from doing it. Also note who publishes the rooting software? Hackers and crackers, who may or may not use that same method to do some nasty tricks when your not looking.

Re:haha, what? (4, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855826)

That is patently false. All you have to do is check the box labeled allow unsigned software.

Rooting software? I flashed a new image right on my phone. Your spewing FUD.

Re:haha, what? (1, Troll)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856088)

Where did you get that image you flashed onto your phone? Did you code it yourself? Did you review it thoroughly if you didn't code it yourself? Or maybe a trusted group of your peers reviewed it?

Re:haha, what? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856220)

Why does this suddenly matter? At some point there is some part of the OS I did not create yes. Welcome to 2011.

You review the code in your Windows desktop OS?

Face it, it is far more likely that you will get some infection on your windows desktop then the repositories I use will be poisoned.

Re:haha, what? (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855780)

The average person will use the store, but you can still let others run their own code on their own devices. Note the lack of botnets made of android phones.

Demonstratably false. If the user wants something, they will follow steps blindly to get it. If the instructions for SuperCoolApp.apk says to turn their phone into a botnet by typing various adb commands, users will do it.

First, jailbroken iPhones had a worm in them. The worm used the well-known root/alpine login to log into the phones via SSH. And why were they running SSH (it's not installed by default for jailbreaking)? Because the user wanted something and blindly followed the Cydia instructions that say stuff like "Install OpenSSH, now use PuTTY to log in (username "root", password "alpine", run FileZilla and copy the file over, run dpkg blah blah blah...".

And second, a couple of weeks ago, Android trojan with a botnet-like capability [slashdot.org] was found infecting Chinese Android app stores.

Trust me, if Joe Average wants something (pirated apps, super apps, free pr0n, etc.) they'll blindly follow any instructions in order to get it. Even stupid ones like "disable your anti virus" and "turn off your firewall". Maybe even "Forward this port on your router".

Re:haha, what? (1)

Pokey.Clyde (1322667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855886)

Users should be free to download any app from any website, and install it on their Macs or PC or Phones.

Where do you think botnets come from? Users who download and install software from websites that they shouldn't but they aren't smart enough to know the difference, or skilled enough to notice the data usage spikes.

You really don't want that kind of power on limited bandwidth cell networks. Remember the average person is an idiot.

Yeah, just look at all of those Windows phones before WP7, and all of those Android phones just overrun with botnets/maleware. Oh, wait...

Re:haha, what? (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856062)

>>>You really don't want that kind of power on limited bandwidth cell networks

Yes I do.
I should not be prevented from loading VLC Player or Opera or any other 'free' program on my Phone (or PC or Mac), just because most users are idiots. Let's not downgrade our phone, laptop, and desktop computers to Lowest Common Denominator uselessness. Otherwise we might as well not have computers, if we can't run the programs we want to run. We might as well wrap chains around the computers instead, and bow down to kiss Microsoft's smelly feet : "Oh please sir, please let me run jEdit on my phone. Please master, please."
Bullshit.
If that's how "smart"... correction: dumb phones will be, then count me out. I'll stick with my open, not blocked computer rather than waste money on a phone that won't let me run the programs I desire to run.

Re:haha, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34856382)

Man I'm happy to learn that I'm no longer average. I got my superior to everyone else rating from peragrin guy.

Re:haha, what? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856312)

You should have to pay to put your app in the store, but NOT to release it to the wild. Users should be free to download any app from any website, and install it on their Macs or PC or Phones.

It's called "The free hand of the market". Was it here or somewhere else I saw the comment that the free hand of the market has a preference for fisting?

Re:haha, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855424)

I am a developer with 6 years C# experience. Fuck that. If I develop an application and choose to release it using my own website and servers, I should be able to do so without paying another entity. I've seen Ballmer in person take heat for the failure that is WinMo 7. He should engage the developers and allow them to publish on windows mobile for free to gain market share. Windows Mobile 6 allowed direct installation to the phones, but the battery didn't last over 4 hours, so it was useless.

Re:haha, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34856092)

If I develop an application and choose to release it using my own website and servers, I should be able to do so without paying another entity.

You can, and you don't have to.

I've seen Ballmer in person take heat for the failure that is WinMo 7.

There is no such product. And there doesn't seem to be any indication that Windows Phone 7 has failed or is failing whatsoever.

He should engage the developers and allow them to publish on windows mobile for free to gain market share.

It's supposed to be a revenue stream, the fee is for providing the distribution, the same as Apple.

Re:haha, what? (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855808)

Only if you're a developer. Apple charges the same fee, if I recall. But don't let me get in the way of your anti-Microsoft ranting, informed or not.

And Google charges $25 for access to the Android Market Place. But you could also set up your own. Most Android phones can be configured to allow apps from outside the Android Market Place too.

Re:haha, what? (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855688)

You have to pay $99 a year to put apps into their store. This isn't a bad price for what both MS and Apple offer.

The problem is that if you don't want to go through their store, you must pay $99/yr to join their development program and load (temporarily) your software on your phone.

This is why I don't own an iPhone or a WP7 device.

What about the law that says you have the right to (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855272)

What about the law that says you have the right to unlock your own phone?

Re:What about the law that says you have the right (3, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855310)

What about the law that says you have the right to unlock your own phone?

You still have that right. But there's no law that says the manufacturer has to make it easy for you.

Re:What about the law that says you have the right (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855828)

There are laws that say a car manufacturer can't refuse to honor a warranty if you do work yourself, as well as various other things to keep from locking you into dealer-only service. Why are electronics different?

Re:What about the law that says you have the right (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855948)

Because the auto industry got bad enough at a time we still cared about protecting consumers that we actually passed laws targeted at automotive companies abusing them.

I think we should pass similiar laws protecting consumers of other items, and in general. But lately all we pass are laws protecting corporate interests.

Re:What about the law that says you have the right (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855324)

There is no law stating they have to provide you access to do so...just that you can do what you want with your phone...your still free to look for or build another solution, just no Chevron. Rather suprising move though, you would think MS would overlook this simply for fear of upseting and driving away an already fragile userbase.

Re:What about the law that says you have the right (1)

Sylak (1611137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855416)

I think it was only addressed directly because it made use of a flaw that potentially could have been more than just letting your phone run non-marketplace things. However, judging by the article, i wouldn't be surprised if there was an product in the future for doing this in a legitimate fashion for enterprise customers, or something similar to XBLA Indy development.

Re:What about the law that says you have the right (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855348)

It's not a law, it was just an exemption to the DMCA. read more [eff.org] . And it only covers you and your phone, not the people that write the tools you use.

Re:What about the law that says you have the right (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855642)

It's your property, assuming you bought one, and you can do whatever you like with your property, provided that there isn't a law against that. I think that's a point that's been lost in recent years, once you sell somebody a product, it's theirs to do with as they see fit. Even if what they wish to do is burn it, bury it or grind it into a fine powder.

That's how property works, if they're not actually providing you with that freedom, then they ought to be brought up on fraud charges.

Re:What about the law that says you have the right (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856042)

Ahh but then that little nagging issue of "Licensing" comes up. That's where you don't own it, you're paying to borrow it. And in that case they're allowed to dictate terms of use of their property.

But then all the consumers don't want software to be licensable, and all corporations do, and you know who wins that war.

Re:What about the law that says you have the right (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855664)

It's not your phone. It's Microsoft's.

If it wasn't, they wouldn't be acting like they owned it by placing locks on it only they have the key for.

the perfect response... (2)

Caratted (806506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855308)

...to the ms greed factory. Cut me a check, too. I won't create whatever workaround is required to bypass your nonexistent security whenever you announce your next yearly tax for services that would have retained more users, provided more profit, and maintained a higher level of user interaction if you simply provided it for free; like everybody else.

I might be upset (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855366)

If I was to have a Win7 device.

But as I view Win7 devices as akin to strolling about town with an albatross around my neck, it ain't gonna ever happen.

So I'm not going to be upset.

Isn't that wonderful? Just think, one less totally $#*(@% pissed off person in the world. (c:

Probably have their own strategy (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855426)

They probably have their own strategy planned and want to have them come in on it. They've been "Sir Walter Embracement" lately within the development community. It's kind of scary.

Shouldn't they have waited... (4, Insightful)

Maltheus (248271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855450)

...until a few more suckers bought their product first? Consider it a loss leader. Are they so optimistic that they're gonna win against android and apple, that they can already afford to alienate their user base?

Idiot phone (5, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855490)

Fundamental question: What makes a smart phone smart? Answer: Ability to run applications you want that actually improve your life in some small way. Taking away the ability and deciding for me what apps I can run and at what cost is a dealbreaker. Same reason I won't touch an iPhone no matter how many lame fart apps appear for it. DRM lockdown turns a smart phone into an idiot phone -a dumb piece of shit. Certainly not worth hundreds of dollars to me. Microsoft, keep it, and shove it!

Re:Idiot phone (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855592)

Heh. Well put. I chose android on my last handset upgrade for similar reasons, even though I haven't got any apps except from the marketplace. To hell with DRM.
 

Re:Idiot phone (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855624)

So one really great fart app and you're in?

Re:Idiot phone (-1, Troll)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855712)

It's a phone not a computer. A phone is something you depend on more than a computer. If your computer crashes so what, you reboot. If your phone crashes you can disconnect from a call.

Which of these two scenarios do you want:

1. Total and utter freedom to install anything on your phone. But miss a very important phone call due to a badly programmed application running down the battery or locking up the phone. Just think, that call could be a job offer, an ex-girlfriend wanting some fun or the news that someone is in trouble.

2. Less freedoms but a better experience, higher quality software, less chance of battery rundown or lock ups?

Did you ever own a Windows Mobile phone before WP7? every single one of them had a reset button and boy did you need it! Anything beyond a simple program stood the chance of locking up the phone completely. Sometimes you had to remove the battery as the reset didn't help.

If restrictions and licence fees weed out all the bad coders then it's a good thing.

Re:Idiot phone (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855790)

It's a phone not a computer.

Negatory, it's a computer. It just happens to be small, fit in your pocket, and take phonecalls as well. This "it's not computer, it's a phone therefore it's special and NEEDS DRM" is a load of bull being fed to everyone by vendors and carriers as an excuse for locking them down.

1. Total and utter freedom to install anything on your phone.

Yes. I should have to explicitly activate it, but yes. It's my property, it's my decision.

But miss a very important phone call due to a badly programmed application running down the battery or locking up the phone. Just think, that call could be a job offer, an ex-girlfriend wanting some fun or the news that someone is in trouble.

Not like that hasn't happened before, with dumb phones. I've had older pieces of crap that would the same shit.

2. Less freedoms but a better experience, higher quality software, less chance of battery rundown or lock ups?

You mean no freedoms, but not necessarily any of the other benefits are guaranteed. The core purpose for lock down with no opt-out is explicitly to route you into their services and their store.

If restrictions and licence fees weed out all the bad coders then it's a good thing.

I can assure you this will not weed out bad coders. It will weed out more than a few good coders, however.

Re:Idiot phone (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855812)

It's a computer which lets you make phone calls. I've never, on any phone, been disconnected because the phone app, or the phone itself, failed in some way. If I ever had a problem, I'd simply redial and continue the phone call. It's not the most important aspect of the device, for me - I surf, email,text etc far more minutes a month than I talk on it. Really, your post is one step way from the 'i don't want a computer..i want a phone..to make phone calls...huh huh huhhh' comments we seem to get every time an article about mobiles/smartphones is posted.

Re:Idiot phone (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855850)

1.

Restrictions and license fees will never weed out bad coders, the worst software I have ever seen has been some of the most expensive.

Re:Idiot phone (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856172)

If your computer crashes so what, you reboot. If your phone crashes you can disconnect from a call.

Ohmigod! Tell me it isn't so!! Disconnect from a call??? Now look what you've done. You've scared the HECK out of all of us!

Re:Idiot phone (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856236)

It's a phone not a computer.

No, it's a computer coupled to a radio transmitter that happens to make phonecalls. I'm tired of reminding people that their 'phones' are computerized radios first, phones second, when they bitch about signal loss.

1. Total and utter freedom to install anything on your phone. But miss a very important phone call due to a badly programmed application running down the battery or locking up the phone. Just think, that call could be a job offer, an ex-girlfriend wanting some fun or the news that someone is in trouble.

Problems like this manifest as complexity increases. If reliability is that important to you, you shouldn't be using a smartphone at all..

2. Less freedoms but a better experience, higher quality software, less chance of battery rundown or lock ups?

You make a rather blatant suggestion here. Back it up. Shitty software is shitty software and plenty of it is open and closed.

If restrictions and licence fees weed out all the bad coders then it's a good thing.

That's just it, they don't. There's more to the 'experience' than good code. The intentions of the business said coders work for make all the difference in the world. The quality of the code only determines how effective those intentions are implemented.

Re:Idiot phone (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856306)

You imply that the only options are #1 and #2. It is quite obvious that this is not the case. For example, MS and Apple could restrict what kinds of applications get into their respective app stores, same as today, but allow side-loading of apps disregarding the store. It can be even disabled by default, with a checkbox that you have to find and enable hidden somewhere under "Here be dragons" property page in settings, and popping up a nasty warning dialog, so that casual users don't accidentally install something from an untrusted source (that is, by the way, precisely how unlocked Android phones such as Nexus One do this, except that Google Market doesn't have app premoderation; but it could have).

Re:Idiot phone (0)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855794)

I want to go back to the days when we got programs out of magazines, typed them into the memory, and stored them on tape. We could open up any hardware, solder in whatever components we wanted. If we needed a driver we just looked up the codes for the UART, for instance, and wrote the damn thing. No wasted time going online to look for others had done. After all, who in their right minds would trust someone else's drivers. And we even had desktop publishing as good as anything know. Just write the printer codes into the documents and you could do all sort of fun things on the printer, even pictures. We had the right to run whatever we wanted on the computer. No one was telling us that we could do.

I hate that for a trivial amount of simplicity we have given up all our freedoms. MS telling us we can't using unauthorized copies of the software. Apple telling us we can't use unauthorized copies of media. Apple telling us that we don't have to buy the phone, but if we do these are the clearly stated rules of us. I could probably hack my PC jr with a wireless connection, hack a phone stack, and carry it around for use as a smart phone. Then I could do whatever I wanted.

99 a year to access the market? (-1, Redundant)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855492)

WTF? Isn't getting raked over the coals for your monthly bill enough?

Re:99 a year to access the market? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855656)

Indeed, unless they're providing free Apps as a part of the deal, I can't imagine how that's going to fly. I'm not aware of any of the competitors charging for access to their equivalent shop.

Re:99 a year to access the market? (2)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855690)

The charge is for publishing to the app store, not accessing it. Which you would know if you had read either the article or a series of comments above.

Re:99 a year to access the market? (0)

muindaur (925372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855798)

I think they are looking for the same dumb schmucks that pay $60 a year for Xbox Live Gold. M$ has a great desktop operating system and office suite, but aside from that they are too greedy with their other platforms. So even though I run Windows on my computer, have Office 07, and run IE(Firefox is just as insecure but because of the lower user base with a higher secuirty sense there are less infectios, and if Firefox had the same market share IE does now we would be looking down on Firefox instead.)

My choice of console, however, is the PS3. Why? I don't have to pay an extra $60 a year to stream Netflix(last I checked it was Xbox Gold Only), hard drive upgrades are much easier, I can use the same power cable as my PC, to recharch the controller I don't need to shell out an extra $20 for the charge and play kit(instead using any UBS A - USB Mini A cable), and it can play blue ray discs so the only thing I need under the TV is the PS3.

I don't buy into the whole smartphone thing. Since I can memorize my full checking account number, still remember a student ID number I haven't used for nearly four years, and I can remember my daily schedule once I check it(outlook on my laptop) I just have a very basic cell phone(with a camera for quick accident photos if needed) and nothing more than the cheapest plan(yeah I have friends but skype, MSN, AIM, and email are the main comm methods including setting up a time to hang out.) I get the occasional SMS message from one if they want to set something up for after I'm done with classes(economy sucks, back in school, blah blah.)

So yeah, most smartphones are completely usesles. If I am traveling, but not driving I bring my kindle, and a good book iof the battery is dead. Microsoft is just trying to play off of those people that will shell out for something that normally is free.

Re:99 a year to access the market? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855814)

It's $99 to publish apps (which also allows you to side-load apps without going through the marketplace). Same as iPhone.

Re:99 a year to access the market? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34856168)

Same as Apple, $100/year gets you the ability to publish in the marketplace, and mostly goes to verifying your identity.

Consuming apps from the marketplace is free, aside from the actual price of any apps you decide to buy.

Quick question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855602)

This might annoy me if I wasn't of the opinion that people using Windows at all are stupid.

Linux based phones have been around for a while now...

Jeeze, Is it just me or (1)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855748)

Is microsoft becoming more evil by the day? At least they could never possibly catch up to Apple's stream of pure evil. If you can't buy something and do whatever the fuck you want with it, as long as that whatever doesn't hurt other people, then it is a ripoff, a scam, a dirty lie, a DRM infested horses shit-hole at best, and extremely evil at worst. Go android.

Re:Jeeze, Is it just me or (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856032)

Google tracks you. Apple walls you in via its glp vs App Store DRM vision. MS wants you to use its tools to value/shine via their limited 'home brew' marketing efforts.
Another deep fear of MS would be the digging down to hardware that was sealed off for value added teclo partners. They get full camera use, you dont.
Sony will rootkit you, Amazon will reach in and remove your ebooks.
What is left? A large cash payment for a pure Linux phone?

$99 for marketplace access??? (0)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855772)

I admit to not even having WP7 on the radar, but WTF Microsoft??

(Or is that 99 bucks for developer access? In that case... WTF Microsoft??)

it's free with webOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34855800)

or just use webOS and enter upupdowndownleftrightleftrightbastart (http://developer.palm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1552&Itemid=59#dev_mode)

Life Imitates the Simpsons (1)

Pauldow (1860502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855836)

This is exactly the same thing that happened to Homer's internet company, Compu-global-hyper-mega-net. From: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Compu-Global-Hyper-Mega-Net [wikia.com] Compu-Global-Hyper-Mega-Net is Homer's Internet company. The company's headquarters is the dining room of 742 Evergreen Terrace. It is never made clear what the company sells or offers, however Microsoft's Bill Gates still buys out the company. After Homer received the wrong mail that was meant to go to Flanders since he started an online Internet service homer read and researched the "Internet" he told Marge they were behind in the world of tech and they started a computer company that was destroyed by billionaire Bill Gates when he said "Well I don't get rich by writing a lot of checks," then he told his goons to "buy him out boys" but when Homer got his hopes up the goons started smashing everything and he and Marge were trapped in the corner of their living room as people destroyed everything they worked for.

What your phone maker doesn't allow this? (1)

nedwidek (98930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855858)

Thankfully Palm tells you how to do this for free on any WebOS device. Download the tools for free and install your own apps over a USB cable. I think someone actually has a way of doing this wireless too.

http://developer.palm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1552&Itemid=59#dev_mode [palm.com]

Really nice OS, sensible company. Pitiful marketshare. :(

Re:What your phone maker doesn't allow this? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34855968)

Android does not even need that. Just check one box and install any apk you want.

Mine went a step beyond. (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856136)

And hopefully they'll continue to do so.

My N900 [nokia.com] allowed me to trivially gain root access by enabling a repository and installing a package that enabled root access. I was able to then add additional repositories and do whatever the hell I wanted.

I don't expect it to always be that easy, and would prefer at least a hardware latch before such activation (proper security with strong defaults) but there should ALWAYS be an "opt-out" for users to assume. The vast majority won't, but it'll keep the handful that want to off your back.

And hell, they may help you later.

Oh dear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34856158)

This will affect all of what...11 or 12 Windows phone users?

Re:Oh dear... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856338)

> This will affect all of what...11 or 12 Windows phone users?

Who knows? Maybe that's a significant percentage.

You must defeat Zheng Long to stand a chance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34856362)

I guess Ryu was right, all those years ago. I was really hoping Noob Saibot would join the dev team, though.

Freaking copy and paste (1)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 3 years ago | (#34856378)

What the hell is wrong with the major phone OS's these days - iOS, Android and Windows Mobile 7 all being initially released without freaking copy and paste. I had that on my shitty palm m100 about 15 years ago.

Grrr! Try typing in a 64 character WPA key without it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...