Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Jun 2011 18:26 UTC
Windows Way back in old and boring January of this year, Microsoft announced they would be working together with the Windows Phone 7 homebrew community, with the goal of creating a stable, supported way for homebrew developers and people interested in homebrew applications to enable side-loading on their WP7 devices. Well, they took their sweet time, but the ChevronWP7 team (Rafael Rivera, Chris Walsh, and Long Zheng) and Microsoft have just announced the results.
Thread beginning with comment 477784
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Hmmm...
by JAlexoid on Sun 19th Jun 2011 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm..."
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm 99.9% sure that homebrew falls under the ***Open Signed Online***
And Apple allows none. So yeah... Apple is till the odd one out.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmmm...
by ourcomputerbloke on Sun 19th Jun 2011 21:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm..."
ourcomputerbloke Member since:
2011-05-12

I'm 99.9% sure that homebrew falls under the ***Open Signed Online***
And Apple allows none. So yeah... Apple is till the odd one out.


I've read this here a few times in various articles, and someone, can't remember who, posted this link

http://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/distribute.html

that has a section about Ad Hoc Distribution,

Share your application with up to 100 other iPad, iPhone, or iPod touch users with Ad Hoc distribution. Share your application through email, or by posting it to a website or server.


So I'm a bit confused. Can someone clarify for me how Apple is the odd one out when it seems their option is less restrictive than Symbian? Is there something I'm misinterpreting?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Hmmm...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 19th Jun 2011 21:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So I'm a bit confused. Can someone clarify for me how Apple is the odd one out when it seems their option is less restrictive than Symbian? Is there something I'm misinterpreting?


By default, Symbian blocks applications without a certificate. However, you can disable this block - you'll get a warning you can dismiss. This way, you can distribute an application any way you like. The OP failed to mention this.

just to clarify: this is a switch in the UI - not a hack. It's implemented by Symbian developers. Go to Tools > App mgr > Options > Settings.

Edited 2011-06-19 21:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmmm...
by thegman on Mon 20th Jun 2011 08:16 in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm..."
thegman Member since:
2007-01-30

Apple ad-hoc distribution only allows up to 100 users, so it's good for closed-beta tests, or maybe an app only used by staff of a small company. But it's not useful for anyone wanting their app to be used by more than 100 people.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmmm...
by JAlexoid on Mon 20th Jun 2011 11:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Duude... You can't even install that app on your OWN device without paying a yearly $99 fee or jailbreaking.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmmm...
by Neolander on Mon 20th Jun 2011 05:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yes and no. The problem with Open Signed Online is that you can't easily redistribute your software, as every new user will have to contact Nokia and repeat the signing process again.

As "superior" signing methods require you to sign on the behalf of a company, I guess that homebrew must stick with self-signed, which has several limitations (you are limited with basic user-mode applications rights, no advanced system capabilities) and displays a warning each time the application is installed.

Thankfully, I was wrong about self-signed applications : they'll work on any device, provided that the user has disabled certificate checks and that he accepts the warning. They just have limited capabilities.

Edited 2011-06-20 05:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1