

Microsoft "embraces" (doesn't prohibit) windows phone 7 jailbreaking - cullenking
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/microsoft-we-cant-stop-you-from-jailbreaking-windows-phone-7-20101129/

======
patrickaljord
> “We anticipated that people would attempt to unlock the phones and explore
> the underlying operating system. We encourage people to use their Windows
> Phone as supplied by the manufacturer to ensure the best possible user
> experience. Attempting to unlock a device could void the warranty, disable
> phone functionality, interrupt access to Windows Phone 7 services or render
> the phone permanently unusable.”

In what way is that embracing? They can't legally prohibit it so voiding the
warranty is the most they can do.

~~~
orangecat
Sadly, not arguing that jailbreaking should be a federal crime is a step up
from Apple.

~~~
tjogin
Can you provide a source for when Apple argued/suggested that?

~~~
orangecat
[http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-
jailbreaking...](http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-
illegal)

~~~
irons
... a case they appropriately lost, as you're aware.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-
loses-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-
drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use.ars)

~~~
sorbus
The fact that they were proved wrong only makes their stance worse.

~~~
GHFigs
They were not "proved wrong". Prior to that decision there was no exemption
for jailbreaking.

------
irons
This isn't jailbreaking a phone, it's just sideloading apps. Jailbreaking on
iOS is commonly used as a means of sideloading, but don't conflate the
concepts.

If Microsoft is really going to prohibit its hardware manufacturers from
throwing up roadblocks to sideloading, the way AT&T does with its Android
phones, then good for Microsoft, but this story doesn't include any details on
that point.

edit: It's pretty slimy to reappropriate the word "unlock" in a mobile
context. It conventionally means "convert a phone to run on a compatible
carrier's network", not "convert a phone to run non-Microsoft-approved apps."
Unlocking a WP7 device now has two distinct definitions.

~~~
tjogin
What are the probable consequences of allowing sideloading apps though? It'd
mean that you could pirate apps without jailbreaking the device, right?

Why would they want to allow that?

On iOS devices, you have to jailbreak your device, and tolerate the mess that
comes with that, in order to pirate. I think most people simply don't want to
bother with pirating on iOS simply because it's so messy, compared to the
legit way.

Also, Microsoft are going to make themselves look like assholes when it turns
out they're not going to allow actual jailbreaking/unlocking after all. I just
don't get this.

------
lwhi
It's difficult to juggle loyalties. Sounds like Microsoft is taking a
pragmatic approach, which is great for developers - but the carriers still
hold a lot of power.

In terms of their phone OS, if the network carrier's needs aren't met, maybe
the platform will go the same way as Zune?

\--

As much as I admire the decision, I still get the feeling that MS is reacting
and responding, rather than forging ahead with a truly innovative strategy.

Re. Kinect; I thought that Microsoft initially disliked the hacking attempts
(and bounty) put forward by ladyada - and even put out a pretty harshly worded
statement confirming that position.

It's fairly straightforward to see how highlighting the openness of a platform
can drive buzz, true interest and sales; especially when the Kinect's recent
history is examined. But if this is a _reaction_ , how likely is it that the
corporation's culture is changing from the inside-out? (i.e. will this be a
lasting change?)

~~~
contextfree
Whoever wrote the initial statement from Microsoft was just confused about
what the Kinect "hacking" actually was. They thought someone was trying to
mess with how the Xbox processes the data, which is locked down, but they were
just trying to access the Kinect's raw output stream, which is left open.
Microsoft's stance didn't change, they just figured out what was going on. As
long as the media isn't interested in the distinctions between hacking,
jailbreaking, sideloading, reverse engineering, etc., this sort of confusion
will persist.

With Windows Phone, the stance and culture did change, but in the opposite
direction to what you're suggesting. Up to 6.5 Windows Mobile was totally open
(in the sense that a Windows PC is open), you were free to install whatever
you wanted, change the OS settings etc. Consumers hated Windows Mobile and
loved the iPhone so with WP7 they moved to a more locked-down iPhone-like
model.

~~~
lwhi
_Consumers hated Windows Mobile and loved the iPhone so with WP7 they moved to
a more locked-down iPhone-like model._

That makes sense to me - but I think the reasoning might be more complex?

I think UI simplicity and UX constraints helped to ensure the iPhone's
interface became so successful. I don't think that this (well considered)
simplicity should be confused for openness.

In relation to openness, I'd imagine the main reasons for producing a more
locked-down (closed) system, would have been the carrier's desire to control
their customer's experience and Microsoft's desire to create a profitable
mobile-app ecosystem.

I still think it would be possible to create a pleasing UI and UX, for a
(relatively) open OS like Android. I think such a thing could potentially
please users as much the (closed) iPhone OS.

~~~
contextfree
Yeah, I was being flippant. I certainly don't think openness and good UX are
mutually exclusive, myself.

Besides everything you mentioned I've seen rumors that one reason they're
restricting third-party apps to a .NET bytecode sandbox is that they're
planning to eventually swap out the current CE6 kernel for something different
and incompatible (possibly NT-based), and they want to just be able to port
the .NET environment rather than trying to persuade third-party devs to port
their apps.

------
ajays
"Microsoft, who have lately been making some laudable efforts to embrace the
hacker community." .... of course they are! They're wayyy behind Apple and
Google, and want to play catchup. If that means "embracing" the hacker
community, so be it; except, of course, when the same hacker community tries
to hack something where they're the market leader, in which case they'll
release the hounds!

Please don't be fooled by Microsoft's new-found religion. Once they have
achieved market leadership, they'll be the first to throw the hacker community
under the bus. And Microsoft isn't the only company with this attitude; I'd
posit that the vast majority of companies are like this.

------
colinprince
Not hugely different, really, from Apple.

 _Apple strongly cautions against installing any software that hacks the iOS.
It is also important to note that unauthorized modification of the iOS is a
violation of the iPhone end-user license agreement and because of this, Apple
may deny service for an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch that has installed any
unauthorized software._

<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3743>

~~~
daeken
This would be a major departure from Apple if they don't actively fight the
jailbreakers/unlockers. Apple has spent a lot of time and money fighting
people trying to modify their own devices; Microsoft would be wise to not
follow their lead.

~~~
irons
Be serious. Apple closes security holes in iOS as they're discovered, just
like every other OS vendor. Not closing them would be unthinkable, regardless
of whether some exploits are currently being put to popular use. The platform
would suffer more if they didn't.

If anything, Apple deserves grief for not aggressively releasing patches to
holes discovered in prior versions of the OS, after they've been obsoleted.

~~~
daeken
It's difficult to call much of what Apple has done "closing security holes".
For instance, the original jailbreak required physical access, as it was done
via recovery mode. This is no more a "security hole" than single-user mode on
OS X.

~~~
irons
Are you really arguing that highly portable mobile devices shouldn't be proof
against an in-person attack by someone you know, say over the course of a
shower, or having left your phone on your desk over lunch? _Of course_ that's
a security hole. (So is single-user mode.)

~~~
daeken
There are two important things here:

1) If someone has physical access to your computer/car/phone/whatever, you
should consider it compromised already; it's all just a matter of how easy it
is for the first person to do it. (Smart cow problem)

2) Real-world security, at the end of the day, is a tradeoff between safety
and user friendliness. This is why it doesn't make sense for Hacker News to
use two-factor authentication, but it does make sense for your bank. Every
additional security feature has its tradeoffs; adding new ones lightly is as
bad an idea as not considering security at all.

~~~
irons
A minute ago you were saying that a vulnerability requiring physical access
wasn't a security hole. Now you're saying I should consider my phone
compromised because other people have physical access to it. I don't see how
you can hold both positions.

~~~
daeken
Everything from leaving JTAG interfaces active (which many devices do) to
enabling you to reflash a phone without authentication (which the iPhone does)
could be considered vulnerabilities. We deal with these because they make more
sense than the alternative.

------
Legion
Question is, is this just going to be another Android situation where carriers
do the locking down?

~~~
brfox
Windows is not open source so it is probably harder for the carriers to just
lock it down (unless they require something in the business deal). With
Android, being open source, then the carriers can change it however they want.

------
napierzaza
The only difference between this and Apple or other companies is that they
even mentioned it. It's not something companies want to "educate" consumers
about. It's something that exists and is outside what the company wants, but
hey, you can still do it so long as the laws keep siding with the consumer.

But at the same time there are indeed soft-ware/hardware mods that the
companies can't warranty or trouble shoot. So washing their hands in those
situations isn't that insane.

