9 ms·
Answering questions about Android developer verification
- rom1v 1y ago> One of the most important themes we hear from the developer community is the need for more lead time to adapt to changes No, it's not.
- realusername 1y agoThat's the biggest lie haha, if they asked a single real developer, we want less useless paperwork.
- orangecat 1y agoThis mostly confirms that it's exactly as bad as we thought. The only clarification is that building from source and installing via adb will continue to be allowed. For now.
- MrDresden 1y agoMy understanding was that those packages still had to be signed with a key known to Google.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- yanosc 1y agoNo need to listen. We all know how evil the intentions are. This will kill the platform, for better or worse.
- tokioyoyo 1y agoWe’ve been through this route before, it doesn’t kill the platforms. It just alienates people like us, which is actually a net benefit to Google.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoAndroid was a sink for people who want things like this and an excuse for people to rationalize Apple doing it. If Android is "good enough" then who needs some actual Linux phone? If Android is open and that's what you want then why don't people just buy one of those instead of having the government break up Apple and Google? People become willing to do things when you throw them out in the cold that they wouldn't do when you were still supplying the bread and circuses, and those people they don't like? It's because they're stubborn and they actually care and they know how to build things, isn't it?
- jjav 1y agoIn this case, the benefit of android is that the owner of the device owns it, so can run whatever they want, in stark contrast to apple. If that goes away, might as well use apple's walled garden. There is no point for android to exist if freedom goes away.
- tokioyoyo 1y agoAn average person never thinks about that. That’s like not even a thing one ever thinks of while purchasing a phone.
- MrZander 1y ago> If your team’s current test process relies on distributing APKs to testers for installation using methods other than adb, you will need to verify your identity and register the package. Absolute bullshit Google. You have no right telling me what I can and cannot run on my own devices. Regardless of how I choose to install it.
- Spivak 1y ago> my own devices I mean hey, at least we all know now that they aren't.
- pr337h4m 1y agoWhat do the OEMs have to say about this? A lot of them, including Samsung, have their own app stores. Surely they'd not be willing to cede control?
- Kwpolska 1y agoSamsung's store contains virtually no original third-party software, anything that's worth installing and is not from Samsung is available on the Play Store.
- b112 1y agoYou know, you have to wonder what they did wrong. Sure the Play store was dominant when they started their own store. Yet companies tend to have excellent success if they control the OS on the device. They could have offered no commission for 5 years, or some such. Does anyone reading this know if the contract they had to sign with Google, to have the Play store pre-installed, reduced their ability to compete? I mean look at the whole Epic thing. They could have offered them commission free use of the store, and used that to draw users in. It's like they weren't trying.
- wilsonnb3 1y agoThey probably weren’t. Samsung does just enough work so that they could feasibly create their own fork of Android in the event of Google trying to fuck them. The Galaxy store is more of an insurance policy than a real product they expect people to use.
- N19PEDL2 1y ago> Samsung does just enough work so that they could feasibly create their own fork of Android in the event of Google trying to fuck them. This is the right time.
- tencentshill 1y ago
- ACCount37 1y agoYep, it's as bad as everyone expected it to be. "We aren't taking away sideloading, we're just going to fully control it now! No Google-unapproved code on user devices! For security reasons!" Chrome isn't enough. We need Android to get clawed away from Google too.
- runting 1y agoNot really though, as you can still install apps over adb without developer verification, same as always.
- oflebbe 1y agoYou can sideload apps in ios too, but you may not run it.
- runting 1y agoOn Android you can both install and run apps over adb. The linked article explains: > Participating in developer verification will not affect your experience in Android Studio, the official IDE for Android app development. You will continue to be able to build and run an app even if your identity is not verified. Android Studio is unaffected because deployments performed with adb, which Android Studio uses behind the scenes to push builds to devices, is unaffected. You can continue to develop, debug, and test your app locally by deploying to both emulators and physical devices, just as you do now.
- interloxia 1y agoNot really though. That's not how apps are usually installed on Android outside of Google's control.
- hn92726819 1y agoDo you see the direction they're heading? They're now making it so maybe .5% of android users know how to sideload. They're clearly chipping away at it, even though they might not be making all the changes at once.
- u5wbxrc3 1y agoGoogles decisision to add developer verification killed my interest in handset development entirely. But hey, at least I know what to focus my time on rather than third party app development ie. F-Droid. I look at my android phone differently now that its on the table which sucks but hey they made me switch my development time to linux drivers now instead.
- MrDresden 1y agoAfter 15 years of professional development on Android I too am now thinking about switching my focus to something different. And it sucks. Just wished there was a viable* FOSS Linux based mobile OS project out there that I could offer my time and energy to instead.
- drnick1 1y agoAren't Graphene and Lineage exactly that? I have been running Graphene on a Pixel for a while now and I don't think Linux phones are a viable alternative. The vast majority of Android apps just work on Graphene, and there are millions of them. The UI experience is polished, everything just works with the exception of apps that require Google Play Integrity. And of course these projects aren't affected by Google's restrictions on sideloading.
- MrDresden 1y agoLook I love that GrapheneOS exists, and I have used it in the past (as have I with Lineage). But GrapheneOS lives by the mercy of Google. Pixel devices being reference devices makes it so that it's unlikely that Google will close them down completely. However, as can be seen with this verification move, Google is willing to go very far to accomplish its aims. They already delayed delivery of Android 16 images, causing GrapheneOS some headaches. Who is to say more isn't to come.
- fluidcruft 1y agoGoogle also announced that Pixel devices are no longer reference devices. The reference device is now some VM.
- notrealyme123 1y agoThe only reason I still have a Google account is because I have a android phone. Seems like that will change soon.
- nine_k 1y agoIs an Apple account materially better?
- politelemon 1y agoAs though to flex a muscle, around the time this program was first announced, apple revoked a third party application from being installed on its devices. I say its and not users, because they've proven it's not your device.
- notrealyme123 1y agoI would say an apple account feels a bit less like having stepped in shit. But no, I think in the case when android is no option any more, I will seriously reconsider if we peaked on some enshitification with smartphones. Maybe no smartphone or Linux phones will be more interesting for some time for me then.
- ahartmetz 1y agoLook, Google. You and me both, we don't want EU bureaucracy to get involved again... (It's going to be a different group than the chat control people. If the chat control people win bigly, this would actually support what they want. Is there, like, any connection between that and the timing of these new rules?)
- sunaookami 1y agoDMA does nothing to prevent this, Google claims it's about security which will satisfy the DMA. Same as for Apple (the EU is going after them because of the fees, not because of the complicated process). The EU is not interested in letting you run unapproved software because they want to use it for themselves with their digital wallet app and ID checks.
- notepad0x90 1y agoCan an non-profit LLC verify itself and submit apps on behalf or anonymous developers after vetting their code? If so, that would probably a nice middle-ground. The reaction to this change has truly changed my opinion that developer's opinions on a lot of subjects affecting the public's safety and security shouldn't be valued much (and yes, I realize I am on HN). If this is a bridge too far, then why should anyone listen to devs about "we can't backdoor cryptography" and things like chat control and more? You can't make every hill the hill you die on. I wouldn't even be against requiring a professional certification organization for developers before they're allowed to publish software to the masses. I would very much find it unpleasant, but we live in a society. You need a license to drive, to be a doctor, engineer and just about any profession where people's safety and well being is in jeopardy. Even real estate agents are licensed! and people all up in arms about a simple id verification. This is just to address malicious code. How does the public know your code isn't full of vulnerabilities, that you're not selling their data to the highest bidder? How do they know that you have a good understanding of secure coding practices and knowledge of privacy laws? Let's talk about that instead, if you publish software for a private group of people, there should be no restrictions. If you're publishing it on a platform that would expose your software to billions of people, get a license after id verification and passing a globally standardized exam (multiple choice and a practical coding exam!). See, the big disconnect is that most developers see software as something similar to writing a book or selling a home-made item on etsy or ebay. But in reality, it's more like manufacturing a car or a gun, or opening a bank (if your app takes payments), or even opening a restaurant or a food truck. all these things require licensing. The malware and privacy loss people suffer is akin too food poisoning, car accidents,etc.. but since it all happens virtually and there is typically no physical harm, developers are dismissive of it. This isn't the 90's anymore, people's lives and livelihoods are all online, all the security measures you can take, using signal for chat, passkeys and password managers for creds,vpns,etc.. and you're still one legit looking app install away, one convincing phish away from your phone being compromised along with all your accounts, finances , job and your entire life as you recognize it from being harmed or destroyed. I urge you all to temper passions with reason and practicality.
- takluyver 1y agoThe umbrella organisation signing apps is not impossible, as far as I know. But it would need to be pretty cautious, because if Google revokes its registration, that could block all the apps it has signed at once. It's hard to see how you could get the necessary level of careful code review with just volunteer effort. But I suspect that most developers who don't want to register with Google are also unlikely to pay money to a third party to work around this.
- DecentShoes 1y agoMore confirmation that Google is a company with too much power and should be forced to sell Android and Chrome
- itopaloglu83 1y agoThey’re more likely to buy out all of our members of parliaments and turn into East India Company and form their own army to protect their investment. We’ve got to a point where corporations are bigger than some countries and getting almost unlimited powers again.
- john61 1y agoThe year of the Linux Phone is coming!
- samat 1y agoDHH has not completed his desktop Linux quest yet…
- MrDresden 1y agoThere sadly isn't a single viable option for a Linux mobile phone out there. - Purism runs ancient hardware, charges way too much and has questionable business ethics. - Pine64 has equally bad hardware but reasonable prices. I don't like the Hong-Kong connection though. Not sure how the security patching environment is in practice. The only option on the table as I see it is buying from the devil and installing GrapheneOS.
- lukevp 1y agoSo this is saying you have to have an Android developer account and sign the app with your identity… so a one-time $25 cost and that’s it? You can still distribute and sideload apps as long as you sign them. Microsoft does this for Windows apps if you don’t want scary warnings popping up everywhere. Apple doesn’t even let you sideload at all for iOS and for macOS they do the forced trash malware thing unless you run commands to allow the app in the terminal. Am I missing how this is different from what we already have on most platforms? Is it because you can’t force it to install the apps? Is there not a developer mode that lets you install unsigned apps, or a way to root the device to install apps?
- rcxdude 1y agoThe fact that other platforms do something similar is not an excuse, and this is more restrictive than both windows and macOS, even if technically less restrictive than iOS. (The fact that all those platforms still have malware, as well as the officially sanctioned google store, should also inform you about how effective this measure is for its stated goal)
- takluyver 1y agoI'm guessing Windows gets a pass because you can still fairly easily bypass the signature check - it's effectively a warning rather than a hard block. It sounds like for (mainstream) Android, the only workaround will be to plug it into a PC and use adb there to install an unsigned app, which is considerably harder. Installing a custom ROM will presumably get around it too, but that's tough, and various government and banking apps etc tend to refuse to run because of attestation. Apple is of course locked down, but that's not news. The anger is because Android was the better option on this dimension.
- eminence32 1y agoI'm not an android developer, so I'm missing some context and key information. But I have a question: When Google is asking developers to "register" their apps as part of this new program, are they just trying to keep a mapping from some code signing key to a government ID? Or are they trying to do a code review process that is similar to submitting to an app store? I know both are objectionable in their own way, but these two scenarios are quite different and I want to understand this better.
- prameshbajra 1y ago> We want to make sure that if you download an app, it’s truly from the developer it claims to be published from, regardless of where you get the app. Verified developers will have the same freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through sideloading or through any app store they prefer. This makes no sense at all.
- samat 1y agoClassic strawman argument and corporate tactics of shifting the conversation without addressing real concerns.
- Arch-TK 1y agoSomewhat unrelated: Do you think the UK government and Google have the same PR team? Thought: Maybe we can organise and collectively hire this PR team to get Google, other big tech, and our governments, to look bad... And get shit done that way... If 2025 is the year of the PR spin, surely the only counter-measure is counter-spin? Edit: Hold on, I think I just re-invented the concept of a political party.
- gruez 1y agoNot to mention this doesn't even solve the problem. What's preventing someone from registering and then releasing an app with a similar name to a famous app? Sure, the registration means there's someone you can sue, but it doesn't allow the user to identify the publisher. A "verified publisher" field when you're installing an app would solve both issues (similar to windows[1]), and not require every app developer to register with google. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:User_Account_Control.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:User_Account_Control.png
- wilsonnb3 1y agoMicrosoft does make you register with them to get verified though
- runting 1y agoThis isn't so bad. Unlike other mobile OSes (namely iOS and HarmonyOS), you will still be able to install whatever you like on Android over a USB debugging connection (adb) without any developer verification. It doesn't take much effort to enable Developer Options, plug into a laptop and run "adb install whatever.apk". It's kind of like the floppy disk era again, having to physically insert things into one's computer to install software. Not a big deal.
- po1nter 1y agoTaking away adb install should be the next step. It's a slippery slope
- runting 1y agoIs there any evidence that Google plan to do this?
- curiousgal 1y agoWas there ever evidence that they would take away apk installing?
- gbil 1y agoadb backup is gone
- rcxdude 1y agoThey've made their intentions clear. As soon as third-parties start to use adb for sideloading there's a very good chance they start to lock that down as well.
- runting 1y agoThat is speculation. Is there any evidence?
- 1y ago
- curiousgal 1y agoBoy do I regret signing up to a yearly plan of Google Workspace, I sure as fuck won't be renewing that next year.
- hn92726819 1y agoOne interesting aspect of this is that when using a personal Android with a work profile, developer options and ADB is (or at least can be) disabled. BYOD will then imply you can't sideload at all.
- bitwize 1y agoAnd nothing of value was lost. BYOD means Corporate can push whatever spyware they want onto your personal phone. I tell any employer I work for, if you really need me to be reachable by phone via an app, you can supply me a work phone. Otherwise I'll do without. I keep a bright-line distinction between personal devices and work devices, and never mix the two. My boss knows this explicitly.
- hn92726819 1y agoThat's great for you, but not everyone has the ability to do that. Android has a massive markershare. What are the odds that all of them can force their employer to get them a new phone? Maybe that's something employers shouldn't do, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a reality and google is overstepping with this change.
- bitwize 1y agoPlease. This is an event up there with Sony taking Other OS away: tinkering nerds and pirates most affected, the vast majority of consumers won't even notice. I don't think it reaches that level of impact. And I think most Android devs working professionally already have developer accounts, or their employers have one, and are already verified. That's what this really is about. If you want to distribute Android apps, be a professional or at least act like one. Take accountability for what you produce, under your real government name.
- mrlonglong 1y agohttps://fireborn.mataroa.blog/blog/why-the-hell-does-android-even-exist-anymore/ https://fireborn.mataroa.blog/blog/why-the-hell-does-android... It's disappointing that google has turned evil. I loved how easy it waa to mod things in the beginning. All that is now gone.
- Cameri 1y ago“Don’t be evil”
- bitwize 1y ago[flagged]
- add-sub-mul-div 1y agoIf you end with the stupid gender crap instead of leading with it you'll be taken seriously for a few paragraphs before people stop reading.
- wrf 1y agoInteresting comment. Do you have more information about this please: > The industry-wide standards for character design, costume design, theming, even mechanics are all set based on these guidelines, which have evolved into ironclad requirements. You will not get funding for your game, nor support or approval from the major platforms (particularly consoles) without complying with these guidelines. I don't personally play video games but have noticed a lot of disgruntled discourse around things such as "Body Type 1" and "Body Type 2" in lieu of "Male" and "Female" being implemented in new releases. Is that as a result of these guidelines?
- greatgib 1y agoHowever, if you prefer not to, we are also introducing a free developer account type that will allow teachers, students, and hobbyists to distribute apps to a limited number of devices without needing to provide a government ID. So much bullshit, I'm really revolted. They want to pretend that they are nice, it is not locked down. But for real, now you will need to be registered to even only be allowed to have your app installed on maximum "a few" of your relative or friends. On hardware devices owned by consenting adults, without anything related to Google, or touching their servers, still they allow themselves a right to review. Worse than that, you test an app, want some contacts to test? Even if not giving your id, everything will have to be traced to Google HQ. Who are you? Who are your friends? ... I lobbied everyone for years against Apple devices, switching people to Android to have a little bit more freedom. Now Google Android will be the same shit. If people working on Google are hanging out around here, please know that your company really sucks now...
- wilsonnb3 1y ago> On hardware devices owned by consenting adults, without anything related to Google, or touching their servers, still they allow themselves a right to review Aren’t the changes only for Google certified Android devices, AKA those that come with the play store?
- bitwize 1y agoWhich accounts for any Android device normies can be expected to own. What, you think your aunt Louise is going to flash GrapheneOS onto her phone?
- whatevaa 1y agoOnly? This is everything except Huawei.
- greatgib 1y agoAs said by others, first it will be hard to find smartphones without that, especially if it is a requirement to be android certified and be allowed to have the play store running. But, the biggest trap that we can easily expect is that a lot of apps like banking apps will use Google API to check that they can only run on devices with the check for signatures. Same as the check for rooted devices.
- metalman 1y agoandroid is the notness, and well, so is the whole fucking web next year this time, linuxphon/computer with removable drives and wired periferals ,do the stuff thay needs done, ignore the rest the security theater can continue for those who want it,over there, yes, yes, up against the wall will be fine
- ExpertAdvisor01 1y agoAs criminals don't have access to stolen identity documents that they can use ....
- valeriaortiz 1y ago[dead]