CNN want info - anyone want to offer opinions?

[Guest damianlewis]

Hi,

I sent an email to Ben Charney at CNN's news.com (I will post later when I get home). I argued that his article on Wednesday about "hacking" of the SPV was inaccurate and sensationalist.

I suggested he wrote an article about how disgruntled SPV developers were being penalised by the certification process and how Orange had delivered a poor quality package and were not moving quickly enough on bug fixes or the certifications in progress.

Ben said:

Thanks for the click.




I wanted desperately to write that story, but I couldn't find anyone who did it. If you're willing to go on the record and tell me what you did, I can write that story.




So:






Are you an SPV developer?




Have you circumvented the system and tested applications on an SPV?




Why?

He has replied to me asking for info about the legal circumvention of the SPV (my term).

Would anyone else like to go on the record (Paul?) to state how and why we have felt the need to circumvent the certification?

<paranoia>We may well be setting ourselves up for another sensationalist expose on "evil hackers"</paranoia>, but I think he is being genuine in his desire to tell the story.

Anyone got a view on this or would like to offer an opinion to Ben?

Cheers,

Damian

[Guest Paul [MVP]]

Yeah, count me in!

How about I draft an e-mail, on behalf of the more than 2000 users?

P

[Guest damianlewis]

Paul,

That would really carry some weight.

I will post my original email in an hour, if I can get out of the office fast enough!

Cheers,

Damian

[Guest Paul [MVP]]

;)

P

[Guest AsherUK]

I'm happy to back anything Paul says... and if needed I'll add my 2 pence worth too.

...although, Ben Charny is obviously after some meaty gossip (to make himself and c-net look good) so he may just "rearrange" what we tell him to suit his purpose.. but I see no problem with giving it go and maybe he will tell it like it is.

[Guest damianlewis]

Hi,

Ben just emailed back to say he would like to get something out within the next couple of hours.

Guess it'll be a late meal tonight...

Damian

[Guest DJHope]

Ill be happy to back paul up too, if it comes to that.

[Guest Paul [MVP]]

Want me to draw something up now Damian?

Mail me or sign on to MSN...

P

[Guest damianlewis]

Paul,

If you could that would be great.

I have got to get home asap, so will MSN you when I get there.

Cheers,

Damian

[Guest Arisme]

I'm ready to back you up, as the Smartphony thread initiator guy :wink:

[Guest Paul [MVP]]

OK, here we go. A masterpiece, even if I do say so myself ;)

P

Hi Ben!

I am the webmaster of MoDaCo SmartPhone (http://www.MoDaCo.com/smartphone), a forum of over 2000 SPV owners that has been established since the release of the SPV, and I feel provides a very good indication of the feelings of the general SPV user.

A little about myself - I am a software developer by day, and I originally set up my forum in recognition of the unique community that will surround a complex device like the SPV. And how the forum has thrived!

As a developer, I completely understand the frustration that many of my forum members have expressed with Orange's certification system.

Put simply, we feel let down by Orange. We have purchased the SPV, itself an expression of faith in a brand new (and as it turns out buggy) product. Incidentally, many of my friends and colleagues, (also developers), decided not to purchase an SPV after learning about certification!

As for us, the Orange / Microsoft faithful, purchasing the SPV provided another potential device for which to develop using skills we already have, an excellent opportunity!

So, an excellent opportunity then? No.

As you know, Orange made the decision to lock the device down, such that only Orange digitally signed applications could be installed and executed.

Is this wrong? No.

Of course, since Orange was keen to exploit the SPV to it's full potential, they set up a developer program. The idea of the developer program was to bring the development community under Orange's wing, provide application signing services, and unlock developers' individual phones so they could test their apps.

So everything's great then? Er, no.

Several months after the launch of the SPV, there is still no sign of the developer program (developer program registrations haven't even been acknowledged), and no sign of unlocking developers phones. As the forum administrator, I have received many e-mails from frustrated developers (and respected Pocket PC developers at that), all but ready to throw in the towel. Of course, this sentiment extends to homebrew developers too!

Good move Orange? Er, no.

So, over time, with developers sitting there looking at their purchase, this frustration grew into action, and SPV owners set about finding a way to remove certification. The rest as they say, is history.

The key point to make is that the application lock removal was borne purely out of despair, from pcellent opportunity then? No.

As you know, Orange made the decision to lock the device down, such that only Orange digitally signed applications could be installed and executed.

Is this wrong? No.

Of course, since Orange was keen to exploit the SPV to it's full potential, they set up a developer program. The idea of the developer program was to bring the development community under Orange's wing, provide application signing services, and unlock developers' individual phones so they could test their apps.

So everything's great then? Er, no.

Several months after the launch of the SPV, there is still no sign of the developer program (developer program registrations haven't even been acknowledged), and no sign of unlocking developers phones. As the forum administrator, I have received many e-mails from frustrated developers (and respected Pocket PC developers at that), all but ready to throw in the towel. Of course, this sentiment extends to homebrew developers too!

Good move Orange? Er, no.

So, over time, with developers sitting there looking at their purchase, this frustration grew into action, and SPV owners set about finding a way to remove certification. The rest as they say, is history.

The key point to make is that the application lock removal was borne purely out of despair, from people wanting to SUPPORT Microsoft's platform! In every place that the lock removal has been discussed, (a case in point is this topic: http://www.modaco.com/viewtopic.php?t=1899), an interest has been expressed in ensuring the phone is still protected from Virus attacks etc. The SmartPhone 2002 architecture is designed to allow applications to run without allowing access to the privileged area of the phone.

So Orange implemented this? Of course not.

Why? Who knows. But the unlocking cat is out of the bag, no doubt to be fixed in Orange's fabled 'update' (a LATE update at that), but hopefully this will serve as a wakeup call for Orange.

We want to support the SPV, help us out here!

Paul O'Brien

http://www.MoDaCo.com/smartphone

[Guest DJHope]

Paul in that post one bit is repeated twice, just thought id let you know.

[Guest DJHope]

Erm is their something wrong with the forum or am i mad, 4,5,6 are repeated in the last post too?

[Guest Arisme]

I vote for #2 ;)

just a thought, it may be useful to add that even if Microsoft provides an emulator for the SPV, which could be supposed to be OK to test homebrew applications, they still need to be tested on a real device as the emulator is completly unaccurate regarding memory constraints and speed

[Guest AsherUK]

...and maybe you could add that the certification issue is just a way of orange trying to make an extra buck or two out of the SPV.

[Guest neilg]

good work to all who are persevering with this, the more coverage and exposure it can get the better, I am happy for my details/email to be provided on any list if you need to quantify further the number of people who would develop and support the phone if they could. Incidentaly I applied to the orange developer forum before the SPV ever appeared and I still haven't recieved even an acknowledgement despite chasing..........mind you I also asked to upgrade to a higher use business tarrif to give Orange more money and that hasn't happened either :shock:

[Guest Paul [MVP]]

No idea why it was repeating, but you get the idea ;)

P

[Guest DJHope]

Yeh mate thats fine ;) Just wondered if i had gone mad! I totally agree with everything stated, i wouldnt have bothered downloading the SDK if i couldnt develop for my phone, surely its pointless!

DJ Hope

[Guest dbcohen]

Could you also add the point that while we have been waiting for some time for a promised bugfix update, indications are that an update to close the certification loophole will be issued in doublequick time.

What is the priority, customer goodwill or corporate policy?

[Guest Arisme]

here's the result

http://news.com.com/2100-1033-981244.html?tag=lh

not too bad overall, but I'm not sure that the "Damian Hack" handle was well chosen :wink:

[Guest Monolithix [MVP]]

Nice to see some truth finally getting out.

[Guest damianlewis]

I am a bit upset that Charny didn't use any of Paul's quotes and did not mention Modaco.

Where the hell did Damian Hack come from?

I guess this was just the usual journalistic distortion of what was said. The creation of a fictitious "hacker" who spoke some of my words is a bit disturbing - do Cnet journos think their readers are so dumb they need to invent stereotypes to feed them their news?

Generally, I think some of the true message gets out, so no harm done.

But it goes to show that you cannot trust all that you read (Iraq?)

Cheers,

Damian "Hack" Lewis

[Guest Paul [MVP]]

Did you mail him about it?!?

P