Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Windows Technology

Windows 7 Phone Gets Jailbreak Tool 159

An anonymous reader writes "Developers have released a 'jailbreak' tool for Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, allowing the handsets to run any application, not just those approved for distribution through Microsoft's Marketplace. Although reminiscent of jailbreak tools for the iPhone, this tool, called ChevronWP7, addresses a feature missing in Microsoft's Windows Phone 7. It allows corporations to develop proprietary applications and install them on users' handsets without the need to first place the application on Marketplace, as is currently required by Microsoft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 Phone Gets Jailbreak Tool

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Huh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by windcask ( 1795642 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @01:05PM (#34390370) Homepage Journal

    plus they manufactured all the game carts

    This I did not know, but it makes sense. That way they could have control over who has access to their technology; it's actually kind of brilliant. It also explains why the unlicensed games were all those funky colors...

  • Re:It's an API! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mlts ( 1038732 ) * on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @01:14PM (#34390508)

    Windows CE isn't a bad OS. I wished MS could have taken a different tack, but I sort of understand how they are going with WP7:

    1: Release as closed as possible.
    2: Add functionality.

    The reason for this is that if they continued with the "open" platform of WM6.5, eventually there would be malware on the platform and the whole ecosystem would be known for being "insecure" just as users bash Windows on their PC for being "insecure" (when it is their own fault for installing pr0nviewerxxx.exe, or they get nailed through a Web browser or add-on, something the OS can't really protect against [1].)

    I predict that eventually MS is going to allow signed executables onto their devices, as well as a way for the enterprise to slap a root cert onto devices so they can have in-house apps and easily distribute/update them via OTA. However, I am sure MS wants to go slowly at this and watch iOS and Android's mistakes so they don't get stung by rogue apps, or Web browsers that allow a phone to be compromised by merely hitting a site.

    [1]: Of course, no OS is completely secure, but comparing oranges to oranges, Windows is on par for the course, supporting ASLR, DEP, and other security features. The battle for the desktop is being fought at the browser, add-on, and Trojan executable points these days.

  • Get a BlackBerry - then you don't need to jailbreak in the first place, as you're able to install whatever you want, from wherever you want, and whenever you want ;)
  • by Microlith ( 54737 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @01:29PM (#34390794)

    Or an N900, then you get a much more standard Linux style OS instead of something wholly proprietary like the BlackBerry OS.

  • Re:Huh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wvmarle ( 1070040 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @01:38PM (#34390956)

    I'm surprised too, but for a slightly different reason.

    Microsoft's stronghold is businesses. They always try to market as a one stop shop, providing all software from servers to desktops. Standardise on Microsoft is what many companies do. And MS seems to know that and cater to their needs with corporate installation keys, allowing companies to run their own update servers, etc.

    And bigger companies of course have their own internal applications as well - Microsoft should know that very well.

    It's only logical to me that MS would market their phones to businesses first: it's also from MS so relative easy to market, and presumably relative straightforward integration in existing networks. Don't bother too much with the consumer market, but make sure that when a company needs to issue phones to its workers, that this are Windows phones.

    But then naturally support for internal applications follows. It seems they do not even have a way for companies to set up their internal app store, and that's the part that surprises me most. Because that's where they could get big companies to go for their phones over the competition.

    That should work. After all, in large businesses, the decision makers are not the end users.

  • Re:Huh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Microlith ( 54737 ) on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @01:45PM (#34391066)

    You can use Enterprise

    Which is great if you're in an Enterprise.

    or Ad Hoc.

    Which requires you manually distribute it to a limited number of handsets.

    But go ahead, keep defending it with bad examples that still require you to pay $99.

  • by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples@gmail.BOHRcom minus physicist> on Tuesday November 30, 2010 @01:47PM (#34391098) Homepage Journal
    Apple's iPhone Enterprise Developer Program is only for companies with 500 or more employees, and ad-hoc is limited to 100 devices. What is for companies in the gap between 100 devices and 500 employees?
  • Why would they copy Apple in this area?

    One might guess that Apple copied Microsoft. The App Store rate structure ($99/yr to develop on a device that you purchased, plus a 30% cut of sales) is almost word-for-word copied from App Hub (formerly XNA Creators Club) and Xbox Live Indie Games.

It's fabulous! We haven't seen anything like it in the last half an hour! -- Macy's