Beta
×

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!

Windows Phone Unlock Tool Goes Official

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the wait-what dept.

Microsoft 118

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 ChevronWP7 Labs was withdrawn at Microsoft's request a year ago, but is back now, allowing users to run any app on their phones for a cost of $9."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I would have had first post (2)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978346)

But Microsoft withdrew it a year ago.

Re:I would have had first post (1, Troll)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978364)

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

Re:I would have had first post (2)

grcumb (781340) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979412)

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.

Re:I would have had first post (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#37981054)

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).

Re:I would have had first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37983840)

Good writing. I think it's very helpful for all.
Read more [blogspot.com]

Seriously? (5, Interesting)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978372)

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

Re:Seriously? (5, Interesting)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978396)

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.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978452)

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

Re:Seriously? (2)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978526)

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.

Re:Seriously? (-1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978652)

"Microsoft has always been."

I hate to put it in these terms, but: I don't know how old you are, but that comment makes you appear to be either a kid or someone who just plain doesn't know what they're talking about.

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?

Microsoft, throughout most of its existence, has been known for being stodgy and conservative. 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.

Re:Seriously? (3, Insightful)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978792)

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.

Re:Seriously? (2)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979500)

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).

Re:Seriously? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978822)

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::

Re:Seriously? (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978850)

Fully agree.. well said and well spoken.

Re:Seriously? (2)

lexman098 (1983842) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978938)

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.

Re:Seriously? (3, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979162)

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.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981148)

Windows 7 != Windows Phone 7

Re:Seriously? (2)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979708)

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 [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.

Re:Seriously? (1)

arunce (1934350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979032)

As an opensource user I must agree with you.

Re:Seriously? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37979312)

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.

Re:Seriously? (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37982678)

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.

Re:Seriously? (2, Insightful)

Imbrondir (2367812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979650)

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.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37982668)

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...

Re:Seriously? (1)

eht (8912) | more than 2 years ago | (#37983986)

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.

Re:Seriously? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980576)

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.

Re:Seriously? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37983744)

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.

Re:Seriously? (-1, Troll)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978408)

The sad thing is that this arguably makes Windows phones more open than most Android phones.

Re:Seriously? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978570)

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? ...

Re:Seriously? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978654)

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.

Re:Seriously? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978716)

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

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37979044)

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.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978588)

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...)

Re:Seriously? (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978642)

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.

Re:Seriously? (0)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978898)

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

Re:Seriously? (2)

imric (6240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978990)

Cyanogen isn't using Android?

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

Re:Seriously? (1, Insightful)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979024)

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).

Re:Seriously? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979188)

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.

Re:Seriously? (0)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979474)

And why was that necessary?

Re:Seriously? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979750)

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?

Re:Seriously? (3, Informative)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979274)

Christ. Here's the Git repo and download instructions [android.com] . 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.

Re:Seriously? (1, Insightful)

Methos137 (1172787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980624)

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.

Re:Seriously? (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978660)

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

Re:Seriously? (1, Insightful)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978424)

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.

Re:Seriously? (2, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978516)

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.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37979672)

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.

Re:Seriously? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37983756)

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.

Re:Seriously? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978732)

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.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978462)

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).

Re:Seriously? (0)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978704)

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.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978806)

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.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37979204)

*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.

Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ago (2)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978410)

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 :)

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (5, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978824)

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.

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (2)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979584)

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.)

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (1)

Imbrondir (2367812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979842)

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"?

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (1)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979952)

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.

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37980830)

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

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (1)

blarkon (1712194) | more than 2 years ago | (#37982444)

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.

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (2, Insightful)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978862)

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.)

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (1)

matrim99 (123693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979178)

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

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979196)

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.

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979508)

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.

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37979654)

Wow, you're a retard.

Re:Wow, I would not have believed this a decade ag (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979566)

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.

Worst Possible Option (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978422)

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!

Gateway (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978458)

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

Re:Worst Possible Option (3, Informative)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978472)

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.

Re:Worst Possible Option (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978640)

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.

Re:Worst Possible Option (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979430)

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.

Re:Worst Possible Option (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37979248)

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.

It's a scam (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978432)

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.

Re:It's a scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978578)

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/

Re:It's a scam (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979386)

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

Windows is to big for app store lock down anit tru (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978440)

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.

What does it not do that the previous version did? (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978448)

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.

Re:What does it not do that the previous version d (4, Interesting)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979530)

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 [xda-developers.com] ), 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.

Re:What does it not do that the previous version d (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980370)

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?

Who cares... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978476)

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

In other words... (-1, Troll)

Rix (54095) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978490)

Hey look! We still make a phone OS! SOMEONE PLEASE BUY ONE.

We'll throw in a Zune!

Re:In other words... (1)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978686)

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

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978972)

Technically, every WP7 device is a Zune.

Re:In other words... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979222)

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?

Re:In other words... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979388)

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!

A note about the group that worked on it (2)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978500)

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.

And to Show Its Disrepect of WP Devs (-1, Troll)

koko (66015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978506)

MS has just legitimized WP warez. Head over to XDA-Developers and take your pick of desktop applications that download any XAP package, direct from MS servers mind you, strip the DRM, and make the XAP now runnable within any now-unlocked phone. Way to go MS! Truly an inspiration to the 'We ain't stealin' if MS lets us" mass. Apparently, if one is bailing water in a tiny dingy (WP marketshare), one must do desperate things. On the dev's backs. mind you.

Nine dollars (1)

Flector (1702640) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978546)

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.

THIS IS MADNESS!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978830)

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

Not "Unlock" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978976)

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.

In Soviet Apple (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979370)

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.

Re:In Soviet Apple (0)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979538)

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.

Re:In Soviet Apple (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979826)

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.

Re:In Soviet Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37984168)

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.

Re:In Soviet Apple (1)

LiroXIV (2362610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979574)

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

This will please about 4 people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980534)

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

great...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37980580)

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!

Still disappointed with Windows Mobile 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37981652)

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...

unlocking vs jailbreaking (1)

Mogusha (1091607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37983034)

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.

Re:unlocking vs jailbreaking (1)

Mogusha (1091607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37983040)

Stupid phone. Calibrating == jailbreaking.

Re:unlocking vs jailbreaking (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37983460)

Calibrating works just fine. To check or adjust your device until it performs correctly.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?