So if you thought WP7's developer ecosystem couldn't get any worse...

"Developers, developers, developers" my arse. Microsoft clearly hates developers and doesn't want their dirty hands all over the pretty WP7 devices. 

http://www.xda-developers.com/feature/enjoying-chevron-say-goodbye-to-your-developer-unlock/    

What about the free dev tools?

What about the Silverlight Toolkit for Windows Phone 7?

Microsoft loves developers.

And the openess of Android, is that really a blessing or a curse? It's got them popularity allright, it also opened up the floodgates for malware.

Gee why is my Galaxy S2 so hot and why does the battery only last 1.5 hours? That's because you are mass mailing everyone in your contact list, oh btw here is your mobile internet bill.

The strategy of Microsoft has been to provide a secure and stable platform for day 1 and not try and built it up once it is popular. Is this a good decision? Time will tell who has the longest breath, but if you look at the XBox for example, it has clearly won over PS3 and the Wii.

So, does Microsoft hate developers?

No, but the times of a free and open platform with the end user as a cop is over. And I think, that's a good thing.

11 minutes ago, ManipUni wrote

Microsoft clearly hates allowing some people to pay less than others for the same outcome.

http://www.xda-developers.com/feature/enjoying-chevron-say-goodbye-to-your-developer-unlock/    

 

Fixed that for you.

Herbie

Hmmm... The sole reason that I would choose a Windows mobile is that I can write everything I need and load on it.

If I wrote something but I could just run it on an emulator... Maybe I should just get an iPhone because at least the ISPs offers a $0 plan (you prepaid a few thousand HKD that will be used to pay the monthly fee for 1-2 years, then you can get the phone free). At least there is more Apps over the other 2 App markets.

I think something is wrong here... People with USB cable (or bluetooth, I don't know) connecting the phone should be able to upload their applications through ActiveSync/Visual Studio as it always were in the past. There's fewer WinPhone app than the other 2 markets already, why annoy developers away?

@cheong: It's a tradeoff between being open for development and being a stable and secure platform.

Microsoft has chosen to be less open and more secure and stable.

IMHO a good choice.

Sorry, but I am a long standing Windows Phone developer and I am not in the least annoyed by this action. 

For what it is worth I don't believe it was taken lightly or without good reason.

Kudos to Microsoft for both monitoring and staying on top of things with 'the scene' and for over compensating with a free year of App Hub!

I forgot how many Microsoft apologists there are on here.    

So just to be clear, if I pay £300+ for a phone, I am unable to run my own code on my device or even customise it the way I want? And worse you all think that is a "good choice?"   

It blows my mind. 

It is one thing to have to pay to use Microsoft's Store. I think $99/year is a little expensive but it takes money to make money and all that. But it is another thing entirely to restrict what people can make and run on their own phones.   

Hell, I even find the $9 or whatever it was insulting, and then to have Microsoft screw all of those people over with a nasty bait-and-switch is just horrible behaviour.   

As I said, this entire place has turned into a giant Microsoft apologist forum now. I should have figured that out when I came to complain about the "activation limit" on my retail 7 and was told that I was "wrong" and that "reinstalling lot's of times is unsupported, and that I should work around it using drive images instead!"        

5 minutes ago, ManipUni wrote

I forgot how many Microsoft apologists there are on here.    

[...]

As I said, this entire place has turned into a giant Microsoft apologist forum now.

Yes, because when people disagree with you they are obviously doing so only because they are Microsoft apologists.

@ManipUni: Hyperbole much (mostly refering to the article, but ManipUni, you're furthering the hyperbole)? The article admits the "experiment" is being shut down because the numbers aren't there. This means "developers" generally aren't using Chevron. In fact it's "hackers" that are. In order to publish an app you're going to have to have an AppHub account which means "developers" have no use for Chevron. It's "hackers", people that want to modify their own device and/or (gasp) pirate software were the folks who wanted Chevron. In fact, I know several "developers" who were legitimately concerned about the existence of Chevron and are probably rejoicing that it's gone.

Is there a niche of people who are going to be irate? Yes. Are they likely to move on to other devices? Probably. Does this mean ANYTHING to the WP7 community/market? Almost certainly not.

@ManipUni: Oh, boo-hoo.  So Microsoft doesn't exactly suit you needs.  Big deal, they don't exactly suit anyone's needs because everyone's needs are different.

Want to constantly re-install your OS?  Fine, use Linux.

Want a phone you can load your own code onto without paying? Fine use Android.

Or you could just come here and have a hissy-fit, it's your choice.

Herbie

1 hour ago, ManipUni wrote

*snip*

As I said, this entire place has turned into a giant Microsoft apologist forum now.

If anything you're certainly right about that.

I guess they forgot about the Yahoo app data bloat problem on the original WP7 release. Microsoft sure protected its users then.

I've never found Microsoft's "protection" to be particularly helpful. Take a look at Metro IE 10 as a great example of Microsoft solving a problem by cutting off its nose. VSTSDB is another prime example of Microsoft's overreaching protection principles; how hard can they make the database development process and then justify it by saying they are "helping" us not release bad code.

@blowdart: Google it. This is a legitimate (by some definition) concern of several developers, and has been raised within direct to Microsoft forums, such as MVP channels. Obtaining the XAP from the marketplace is trivial. Once obtained the ability to put the app on the device is basically all that's needed to use it.

Personally I'm against any and all anti-piracy efforts beyond finding and prosecuting the pirates. So the concerns about being able to sideload apps making it easier for pirates doesn't impress me at all. Like ManipUni, I'd rather have an open device that allows me to load programs I write for myself onto it. That doesn't mean I'm going to switch to Android because Chevron is going away, especially since I've got an AppHub account, but I acknowledge some will. What I don't acknowledge is that this group is large enough to matter, nor that this group warrants the name "developers". Even if every single Chevron holder were a developer (they're not) they would still constitute an extremely small percentage of the developer group. Which in turn is an extremely small group of the WP7 community.

I'm not sure what the Chevron thing is, but is it different than the Application Deployment utility?

http://www.imaginativeuniversal.com/blog/post/2010/12/15/Windows-Phone-7-Side-Loading.aspx

Can't you run the app on the phone through VS and a USB connection? I really don't see the need for side-loading apps.

As far as the $99/year fee, that's the same amount that Apple charges to develop for iOS.

I'd love to see more quality apps on WP7, but I doubt it's a $99/year fee that's stopping it. It's the tiny marketshare. Hopefully with $100 Lumia 900s, we'll see the marketshare start to climb.

@wkempf: as a developer, I expect the ability to load my own code onto my own device. And I have always been able to tinker with my phone (albeit having to agree to disclaimers and warranty waivers of all kinds) till Apple entered the market.

There's no technical reason I can see, not even piracy which, while it can be a valid concern, can be addressed or mitigated in other ways.

The only valid reason I can see is that if everybody were able to load arbitrary code on their devices, a "black" store would appear overnight with apps that may or may not pass MS scrutiny or content policy, but that in all cases wouldn't pay the 30% cut. And it would still be ok if it didn't mean that there would be two starving appstores instead of an almost lively one.

Simple idea: let anybody who bought a VS license or an MSDN subscription load their own stuff on their phones (as in more than one).

I would rather get the development tools for free and have the option of paying $99 if I decide I want to publish. 

But,

You can please some of the people ...

@Ian2: +1

Herbie