Android Developer Verification

https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/android-developer-verification-rolling-out-to-all-developers.html

by ingve • 4 months ago

328 334 4 months ago

android-developers.googleblog.com

bstsb• 4 months ago

from https://9to5google.com/2026/03/30/android-developer-verifier... -

Starting in April, Android Developer Verifier will be installed on devices.

so they're rolling out a system app that will call home to check whether any sideloaded apps have been "verified" with the developer's government ID? and this process will happen regardless of whether the user has enabled the "advanced flow" in Developer settings?

birdsongs2• 4 months ago

Good of a reason as any to go google-less on my Graphene pixel, I guess. But man it sucks, mostly for all the people who can't. I can manage my financials and 2FA from my laptop, that was my last real reason to have google play installed, but it's just a convenience. (I know it's mandatory for others.)

I wonder how that sys app will be handled in GrapheneOS's google play sandbox?

subscribed• 4 months ago

It'll probably always confirm it's been verified.

GOS have already said users won't be impacted by this clampdown.

fc417fc80222• 4 months ago

That essay about being licensed to use a debugger was supposed to be an absurdist over-extrapolation for the sake of making a deeper point about software freedoms ... right? Seems more like they're using it as an instruction manual.

stuaxo• 4 months ago

Sorry, but absolutely not.

I stuck with Android for years as a dev as I once did Android apps and occasionally do tinker.

This is my last Android phone and Jolla is my next phone.

birdsongs2• 4 months ago

I really want to like the concept of Jolla / a European mobile alternative but I see no reason why they're closed source SW in 2026. Open source everything, let the community help develop, and sell your hardware (and support/deals for B2B).

A single for-profit company owning the full HW and SW stack? My trust in companies lately is at a lifetime low. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

amarant• 4 months ago

Ooh, are you gonna go for their Ubuntu touch alternative, or their own OS?

andrepd• 4 months ago

I don't see a way out of this except government regulation. The EU has the most motivation to do it, as a huge economic bloc with a lot of motivation right now to become as independent from the US as possible.

I guess I can sort of manage to keep my head above water and keep buying secondhand phones which I unlock and install a supported version of LineageOS. But it's cumbersome, it gets more difficult and more restrictive every time. And I literally have a doctorate in computers for crying out loud! Is there any hope for Granny? For a kid? For >99% of people? Of course not.

This is so clearly a matter for government oversight: prevent abuse, monopolies, protect the citizen's safety, rights, welfare, etc. It's not reasonable to expect consumers to figure out if the meat they buy is tainted, just as it's not to figure out if their phone spies on them, manipulates information, or sells their data (especially when there's a duopoly). That's why we have laws and food inspectors, paid for by the public, working for the public. Same thing with digital rights.

pzo2• 4 months ago

I don't see a way out of this except government regulation.

IMHO governments are partially behind those initiatives so they are unlikely to regulate themself- reason in last few years they intensified work on Digital ID, Age Verification, Chat control, KYC, etc.

zrm• 4 months ago

There are different governments and different subdivisions within any given government. The only thing you need to get a government that had been pushing Chat Control to do some trust busting is to get more votes.

lokar2• 4 months ago

For the limits on side-loading in particular, there are a few southeast asian nations (I can't recall, Vietnam? Thailand?) where almost all internet access is via Android, including banking. And social engineering fraud, where they call someone up, pretend to be the bank, and get them to side-load malware, has become a major financial, and political problem.

AIUI, they have told Google to find a fix, or else.

nout2• 4 months ago

EU is schizophrenic enough that it often produces very conflicting directions, opinions and policies.

One thing EU loves is regulation though, so I expect they will introduce preemptive regulations to enforce strict ID verification as well as regulations to fine big companies for breaching user privacy with strict ID verification policies.

user34283• 4 months ago

You'd think in 2026 regulators would finally step up their game to break up the mobile app distribution duopoly.

And Google thinks it can pull this ridiculous stunt.

retrodaredevil• 4 months ago

The thing is, the EU needs to be able to not only sell that the regulation they propose is good to the public, but also not piss off the US administration.

Most people are too non-technical to understand why this is a bad thing even when it's explained to them. Plus, whatever administration is in power in the US has a lot of influence.

Trump has already said that he wouldn't tolerate regulation that affects American companies [1], painting regulation that happens in another country as something that will affect US citizens. (I mean if you use the GDPR as an example, it's not wrong. Think of cookie pop ups while browsing the web in the US)

I would like the the EU would go harder with their regulations, because it usually results in other countries or states following their lead, but I dont see that happening. Regulation has been painted as "bad", and we have at least 3 more years until that changes.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/12/tech/us-eu-tech-regulation-fi...

burnerthrow0082• 4 months ago

rump has already said that he wouldn't tolerate regulation that affects American companies

This lays bare the stupidity of applying the pay-or-consent law to only Facebook and not everyone. Every important newspaper in Europe has pay-or-consent. It does not matter that each one individually is smaller, the effect is the same.

The law was carefully crafted to ensure European businesses (newspapers) are not "gatekeepers" while ensuring American businesses (social networks) are. That fact did not go unnoticed in the rest of the world.

seanalltogether• 4 months ago

"This is so clearly a matter for government oversight: prevent abuse, protect the citizen's safety, rights, welfare, etc. It's not reasonable to expect consumers to figure out if the meat they buy is tainted, just as it's not to figure out if the APPS THEY INSTALL spies on them, manipulates information, or sells their data"

Do you see how quickly that argument can be flipped to support what google is doing here? Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if half the reason to to lock down phones is because governments keep pressuring them to do so.

EmbarrassedHelp• 4 months ago

I'm wondering if the EU is complicit in this somehow, despite claiming that they want to fight back against tech companies.

The EU Commission is currently pushing the shitty EU Identity Wallet for mandatory age verification, and it requires GooglePlay Services to be installed for "anti-tampering". That also means a ban on non official versions of Android like LineageOS and GrapheneOS.

zoobab3• 4 months ago

The DMA team replied to me that they did not see any legal issues with Google enforcing mandatory ID for sideloading apps.

We need an urgent upgrade of the DMA v2.O, in the fast paced Omnibus package.

Feel free to post proposals here.

burnerthrow0082• 4 months ago

But what motivation has the EU to promulgate these regulations?

* Chat control is toothless if users can simply side-load an app without snooping.

* The EU companies who successfully lobbied for regulations against Apple now see that the 15% tax is worth it when they can A/B test the counterfactual. So those companies no longer care if Google will do the same thing.

* The EU is now in an awkward position that it is ok for a newspaper to sell your personal info via pay-or-consent, but not for a social network to do it. Some will keep yammering on about "gatekeepers", but it's sort of an emperor has no clothes moment.

* Declaring that iPadOs is a gatekeeper (after it failed to meet the quantitative criteria for such) was another such emperor has not clothes moment. The whole "gatekeeper" narrative has turned into a farce.

* The people commenting on this forum are not even a rounding error in the EU electorate.

It's not reasonable to expect consumers to figure out if the meat they buy is tainted, just as it's not to figure out if their phone spies on them, manipulates information, or sells their data (especially when there's a duopoly).

Indeed! Neither would it be reasonable for the sellers of meat to demand anonymity! If one sells tainted meat, he should be held accountable! We should identify him!

Yet, the creators and sellers of software for a General Purpose Computer (remember, that is the argument why phones should be regulated) demand that they should be above the law, anonymous and unaccountable!

Schrodinger's computing device: The one which is so vital to everyday life that we must not prohibit the user to run whatever software he likes, yet so unimportant that we have not a care in the world to identify any fraudster who might wish to distribute software.

Fordec• 4 months ago

Yeah, no, going back to web native. Keep your verification and your 20%.

parrellel• 4 months ago

Yeah, no. No one needs your spyware.

ethagnawl• 4 months ago

What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care?

I've been using Android since 2010 because it was open in ways that the Apple ecosystem wasn't. I do not want this and imagine hardly any other power users (for lack of a better term) do. I'm already using a mostly deGoogled device but this really seals the deal. I have been longing for a true Linux phone for years and now seems like a good time to get serious about the search and migration plan.

motbus3• 4 months ago

But but but it is for your security! You need to be protected!

Android isn't open source for a while. They started by pushing device certification which crippled any abilities of OEMs to make a better framework. Then they took many of the opensource packages out of android and redistributed as applications that they controlled via play services.

Then they made it harder to publish packages and created tons of rules that they can arbitrarily decide to cut ties with you or remove your remuneration.

What they are effectively doing now is to remove any ability of individual developers to push applications. Some will say the costs ain't that high, but (1) maybe not in USD dollars for Americans and (2) both Google and Apple will push those numbers way up high soon.

Even if that is not the case, if you don't agree with anything and you decide to have your own version of your family wiki, messenger or anything, they will be able to tell the authorities about it.

This is insane....

JLCarveth2• 4 months ago

Being able to side load apps was why I switched to android 10 years ago

ux266478• 4 months ago

Yeah. Computing freedom to have a root shell and do as I please is the entire reason I put up with Android. Google is positioning Android to just be nothing more than a worse iOS. There's pretty much no point to it anymore.

matheusmoreira2• 4 months ago

Same. If Google does this, my next phone will be an iPhone. Freedom is the only reason to put up with Android's shittiness. If they turn it into a walled garden, then we'll choose the better kept garden and it sure as hell isn't Google's.

tejtm2• 4 months ago

Please call it what it is and always has been:

   I.N.S.T.A.L.L.I.N.G   S.O.F.T.W.A.R.E

"side load" is like "jay walking' seeks to stigmatize humans being human.

EvanAnderson2• 4 months ago

I switched from iOS to Android about three years ago. I saved all the APKs for everything I installed (or updated) on that first phone. When I got a new phone last fall it was pleasantly like getting a new PC. I imported my SMS and contacts from my last backup (taken with an open source took I'd installed from an APK), then installed all the apps I use and imported or manually set any settings I wanted to customize.

Every non-stock app on my phone was installed from an APK directly downloaded from the manufacturer or open source developer's site / Github releases. I've never had a Google Play account and have never used any Android "app store".

The biggest pain was having to manually logon the couple of sites I allow to keep persistent cookies since device owners aren't allowed to just import/export cookies from mobile Chrome.

It has been a very nice experience. I appreciate the feeling of sovereignty and ownership of my device (even though it does have a locked bootloader and I don't actually have root).

Of course Google would take this away. >sigh<

cosmotic• 4 months ago

Rounded to the nearest percent, I'd guess power users make up 0% of android user base.

eimrine3• 4 months ago

And what is your view on the percentage of power users among iphone user base? Also zero? One hundred? So interesting.

blackbear_• 4 months ago

Is it because people genuinely don't care, or because the barrier to become a power user is becoming taller and taller every passing year?

HerbManic• 4 months ago

That is true but they are also some of the most vocal advocates of certain systems. It is a king of trust errotion that doesnt show up for a very long time but by the time it does it is too late to reverse.

Tge flipside of that is that Google and Apple have no viable alternatives. It would take years to build what they have.

It took Huawei about 5 years with Harmony OS to do it but odds if that making it far out side of China is limited.

4nonverbal-alit• 4 months ago

What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care?

Bold of you assuming they're doing for users. It's fear-mongering at its finest - using the threat of security to install more control that has little to no protection against the said threats.

Now you might say it's going to raise the bar for the scammers, but nobody is going to be spending time on writing scam or malware for a few bucks. When the reward is high, they can just pay out already verified developers to distribute their builds under their accounts, or just find a workaround (fake ids?) which could be still way cheaper than the potential revenue potential of a successful attack. It's just an inconvenience that didn't existed before.

This is just a policy directly targeting the legit developers distributing apps to work around some of the platform's limitations (ie. uncrappifying youtube). They were previously free to share the workarounds they've developed for themselves since it was just as easy as sharing your APK. Now with added threat of losing your developer account and probably being perma-banned from google, those devs are less likely to continue distributing their workarounds.

charcircuit2• 4 months ago

People don't want it until they've been scammed. Then they'll complain why you didn't save them.

cubefox3• 4 months ago

Do people complain about being scammed with Windows or macOS? Apparently not. So they probably also don't complain about Android. The security seems more an excuse to become more closed. Like iOS.

fc417fc80222• 4 months ago

People will erroneously complain about all sorts of things. Doesn't mean you should act.

Anyway in this case it's nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse to justify making ecosystem changes that are in their favor. They aren't acting in good faith.

beacon294• 4 months ago

You were wrong at percentage. The question is what count would want this.

throwaway858253• 4 months ago

It would be good if there was less malware and outright scams in the play store but that's really orthogonal to the developer verification issue.

fc417fc80222• 4 months ago

Not sure why your observation was received poorly. It's true. If they actually wanted to fight bad actors they could (for example) introduce a voluntary verification program where an app cost $$$ per year to list, is permitted only a fixed number of updates per year, and the uploads are manually audited by an actual person. This would add a second tier to the app store.

Just to drive the point home. Not that you would do this but you _could_ even implement such a system fully anonymously - with uploads via tor and payments via XMR - and it should still work just as well.

Add in a third even more expensive tier for those providing source code to the auditor where google verifies a signed deterministic build the same way fdroid does. Now clearly mark the three different tiers in the app store.

And if they went this route the next logical step for highly sensitive stuff like banking and password management would be a fourth licensed and bonded tier where a verified individual located in a friendly country took on liability for any fraud or other malpractice. That tier would be the equivalent to the situation for civil engineers.

Instead we're stuck in a reality where I don't trust sourcing password managers (among other things) from the play store. Those only ever come from fdroid for me - you know, an actually secure model for how to do app distribution and verify builds.

WarmWash• 4 months ago

It's not about users, it's about a single judges idiotic ruling that Google play store is a monopoly, and the Apple app store is not.

Different judge you say? You're right. But when Google in their appeal asked the judge why the app store isn't a monopoly, the judge told Google with a straight face

"You can't be anti-competitive if you have no competitors."

Google took note.

marcprux3• 4 months ago

What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care?

2%, according to the keepandroidopen.org poll[^1]

[^1] https://techhub.social/@keepandroidopen/116251892296272830

akerl_3• 4 months ago

Do we think that maybe the 3,732 people who responded to a poll on Mastodon by an account centered around one side of this disagreement might potentially not be a representative sample of all Android users?

satvikpendem• 4 months ago

Sampling bias.

skybrian2• 4 months ago

Pretty much everyone would hate it if a relative lost their life savings to a scammer, though they may not know it yet.

The idea isn't to protect the power users or average users. It's to protect the most vulnerable. Android is for everyone. Us power users will have a minor speed bump, but we can deal.

gumby271• 4 months ago

Android is for everyone, provided they submit to Google exclusively. It's not about power users, and that isn't a speed bump. You can protect vulnerable users without centralizing power like they did, but that's not their motivation so here we are.

CivBase• 4 months ago

How very noble of Google /s

JCTheDenthog• 4 months ago

I would buy this argument if the Play Store wasn't already full of garbage and viruses and scams.

binkHN• 4 months ago

Android is becoming more Apple-ized everyday; it's horrible and more and more APIs get neutered or disappear, further limiting functionality available to developers.

tonyedgecombe• 4 months ago

It's worse than Apple because not only are they locking it down in the same way but the whole thing is funded by adverts.

unsungNovelty• 4 months ago

Even if Android is as closed as iOS, it will never be the same. Cos business models are different. Google's business is behavioural ads. Apple's is hardware. And even their software services depend on that hardware.

Rohansi• 4 months ago

What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care?

If Apple announced that they were going to allow installing apps like how you can install APKs you will have a whole group of people on here arguing against it because they want Apple to have control over everything. You could have seen those people in action on the Epic v. Apple and Digital Markets Act discussions.

tedk-42• 4 months ago

Google/Android don't want AI bots spamming marketplaces with dodgy apps.

Tie in the app to a verified identity/individual and it makes the audit process easier as well as engagement with authorities from the user's country if required (e.g. app facilitating child abuse).

thayne2• 4 months ago

But they don't have a problem with using unreliable AI bots to audit apps and deal with support.

tredre32• 4 months ago

e.g. app facilitating child abuse

I'm going to go on a limb and say that the amount of apps dedicated to facilitating child abuse is close to 0, and the popular apps from verified developers being used for child abuse is close to 100%.

wiseowise2• 4 months ago

Of course it’s the apps that checks notes facilitate child abuse.

pocksuppet4• 4 months ago

Time to switch to Graphene.

izacus5• 4 months ago

Significantly larger than the number of users wanting to sideload.

There are millions of people affected by targeted scams every year, significantly outnumbering the non-developer sideload community. Especially when you take into account that the sideload community doesn't all use Google Android and isn't affected by this.

lern_too_spel2• 4 months ago

This change on its own doesn't make Google Android builds less open. It does the opposite. Now people can download apps directly from the websites of the publishers without getting a scary warning on Google Android builds. That's all this does.

Separately, they're going to increase friction the first time you allow installing apps outside of the Play Store or via this mechanism and also decrease friction on subsequent times, also on Google Android builds.

UncleMeat4• 4 months ago

I suspect that this is less driven by users and more driven by institutions. Banking trojans distributed via sideloading are a big problem. Banks are unhappy that their users are getting their shit stolen because some other app is squatting on 2fa codes or whatever. They'd rather that their apps are not installed alongside apps that are more likely to be malware given that there isn't a private channel for auth codes for the vast majority of users.

nout2• 4 months ago

That's seriously horrible. There are 5+ open source android apps that I use and want to continue using that are not available on Play Store, but rather through alternative stores (like Zapstore, Obtainium).

If I get a phone with preinstalled Graphene OS (like the upcoming Motorola phone), then does it avoid this stupidity? Or even with Graphene it prevents me from installing apks?

ekianjo• 4 months ago

Graphene allows APKs

ysnp2• 4 months ago

Having GrapheneOS preinstalled is an option they may discuss with Motorola. It is not the current plan. The current plan is that Motorola release their devices as normal, but some of the flagship devices in 2027 will support manual installation of GrapheneOS.

hirako2000• 4 months ago

The sad thing is only a tiny minority of android users side load apps. The rest will feel their phone is one step more secure.

stavros3• 4 months ago

How is it more secure for the people who don't sideload apps?

fc417fc80222• 4 months ago

They'll feel it's more secure. It won't actually be but they'll feel that way and vibes are important. /s

rvnx• 4 months ago

Hey boss: “40M users are running a cracked version of YouTube premium on mobile, what can we do ?”

sporp• 4 months ago

I pay for YouTube Premium and I have an alt app on my phone because the user experience is just better. You're supposed to have background play in the regular YouTube app, but videos regularly pause until you return to the yt app to reload.

It all worked perfectly fine back on my iPod touch, pre-premium bs. Tech is regressing.

I'm on a family plan (cheap) and I use it for the music player for the inevitable question of why I'm doing this.

londons_explore• 4 months ago

Exactly this.

And that launch country list is most likely the countries where cracked YouTube Premium is most common.

App piracy is huge by copying around modded APK's, and everyone's grandma is doing it.

UncleMeat4• 4 months ago

Google could already flag these apps as malware or whatever. What developer verification does is enable Google to detect polymorphic apps.

einpoklum3• 4 months ago

NewPipe is in no way cracked:

https://newpipe.net/

kayson• 4 months ago

our recent analysis found over 90 times more malware from sideloaded sources than on Google Play

So what's the solution then? At the same time, I'm curious how this ends up happening to end users. Enabling unknown sources is trivial in a way (it's just one check box and if you try to install an APK from, say, Firefox, it'll take you right there), but how are people even getting to that point??

lmz• 4 months ago

Phone scammers guiding users to install apps.

bossyTeacher• 4 months ago

"However, our recent analysis found over 90 times more malware from sideloaded sources than on Google Play."

Has anyone seen the report for that analysis. I bet most people here would love to read it too.

Macha• 4 months ago

I mean, I’m sure “Fortnite with infinite vbucks.apk” has a much worse malware rate than the play store, but I’m almost certain that fdroid has a lower malware rate than the play store and I honestly suspect even “random apks off github” might have a similar rate to the play store

curt152• 4 months ago

Suppose for argument this statistic were true. It still does not fully capture people's risk.

P(malware) = P(nalware | Google Play) * P(Google Play) + P(malware | non-Google Play) * P(non-Google Play)

It's the combination of both factors that counts. Even if Google Play has a lower malware rate, a user is still far more likely to try to install apps through Google Play given the sheer size of its catalog and its prominent, default placement on people's devices.

TGower5• 4 months ago

It really seems like they are doing a lot to appease the tiny minority of us power users, adb load unaffected, one time toggle in settings to opt out, no change to alternative app stores as long as the apk was built by a verified developer. Crazy how harsh the sentiment is here, there are real people being harmed by scam apps intercepting sms one time codes and this will reduce the rate of that happening. It's not like we can't sideload anymore, though a lot of comments here seem to be implying otherwise.

kcb2• 4 months ago

Because the initial announcement included none of that... it wasn't addressed at all until the harsh sentiment.

TGower5• 4 months ago

Then shouldn't we celebrate the victory, drop it, and move on?

fc417fc80222• 4 months ago

It still hasn't been addressed. They walked back half of their wholly unreasonable position in an attempt to legitimize the other half.

brnt• 4 months ago

Those scam apps largely are installed from the Play store. Let them fix that first.

TGower5• 4 months ago

Really, there are apps that will intercept and exfiltrate your bank one time code sms that are just sitting on the play store? First I'm hearing of this, what's the name of one?

selectively3• 4 months ago

Your post is an outright lie.

hnburnsy4• 4 months ago

Because this is a glide path to what they really want, look at Apple and running unsigned apps on your Mac, how it started, simple right click, how is it going, near impossible.

selectively3• 4 months ago

How it started: almost everything is signed, even pirated apps

How it's going: almost everything is signed, even pirated apps.

????

circuit10• 4 months ago

But that "tiny minority" are the people developing apps, which all their other users use... if you drive away devs from wanting to develop on your platform that's not going to go well for you (of course, they may still be forced to develop for Android if they want a wide audience, but you're driving away hobbyists with new ideas)

TGower5• 4 months ago

I still don't get how they are driving away devs. It's super easy for us to click the setting. If I urgently need to test my app during the 24 hour waiting period, I can just adb it on my device.

Based on the reaction here, it's obvious I'm missing something here, but I just don't see any real reason devs are feeling like they are being driven away. It's hardly more of an inconvenience than enabling developer mode, and I feel like we all get why they hide the developer settings menu behind that.

fc417fc80222• 4 months ago

intercepting sms one time codes

Crazy idea, maybe they shouldn't be using those then. Maybe they should use email? Or god forbid a TOTP app. Or perhaps webauthn via the platform provided authenticator.

They very clearly aren't behaving in good faith. That's why the harsh sentiment.

mrtksn5• 4 months ago

The Android verification is such a broken experience. Recently I decided to purchase a dev account for my company, so far:

1) Provided my company DUNS number etc. once to create the payment profile. I did this some times ago, don’t remember the details but it was an involved verification process and it is marked as verified business payment profile.

2) Later on the payment step verified myself with a passport and bank statement to be able to actually pay with a proper HSBC bank card. Not shady pre-paid card or something, those are not accepted anyway.

3) After I paid I was told that now I need to verify my identity once more but this time with the passport and the incorporation certificate or some other company document.

fingers crossed that in few days it will be verified. While waiting, it tells me that there are still website and email verification to do once the previous step is done. I already verified my e-mail a few times before paying.

It’s painful, slow and annoying because if you fail at a step(i.e. needs verification that takes days and you are told about it at the payment step) you have to start again with the forms.

I just remembered why I never use Android. It seems like no one owns the process and as a result you get unpolished shitty experience that fulfills the requirements of god knows how many people who work in the same company but don’t talk to each other.

mcsniff• 4 months ago

What you're describing is not "broken", it's the process and it appears it hasn't even failed for you.

My experience with getting a verified "business" developer account from Google mirrors the experience as getting one from Apple, except it's a one-time fee and much less than Apple.

Yes there are hoops to jump through, identification usually requires some hoops, but pretty it's straightforward. I am not commenting on the requirements of these hoops, yes, it's BS that they exist but it's their platform so it's their rules.

What type of "experience" are you expecting to have anyway?

mrtksn5• 4 months ago

With Apple I filled the forms, accepted the agreements, entered the DUNS and paid with a card on my name and that was it.

How does that mirror uploading my passport many times, entering company details many times, typing my e-mail and phone numbers many times both because I had to start over and because I was asked many times even if I provided these some steps back? Now I paid and waiting, hopefully I will later be verifying my e-mail address or something that I verified a few times prior.

What type of "experience" are you expecting to have anyway?

The Apple experience. An experience that is well thought and streamlined, that doesn’t keep me entering the same information over and over again. I don’t mind paying a little more for well designed products. The $75 difference is nothing to justify this charade, I don’t think that that Google was short of $75 and designed this low quality experience, I think it’s engraver in their DNA.

debazel• 4 months ago

What type of "experience" are you expecting to have anyway?

Being told upfront what is required to complete the process so you don't have to start over again multiple times?

63stack• 4 months ago

It's not broken, it's the process ???

What would you consider broken?

hnburnsy4• 4 months ago

Can you pay with Google Play GC or Google Play points, and if not, why not?

mrtksn5• 4 months ago

I believe you can’t. BTW Apple allows you to pay for a developer account with in app purchase from the developer app on your iPhone. Still has limitations and you may be rejected depending on your payment method and some other factors but even the fact that it’s possible makes it 1000 better than Google’s way of handling it.

fc417fc80222• 4 months ago

If this is a business account why do they want your passport? And why are you paying with a personal bank card rather than a business one? Or do I misunderstand?

__float• 4 months ago

They may want proof that you, the human filling out this form, are authorized to publish apps, communications, etc. as the company you say you represent.

nandomrumber• 4 months ago

It’s entirely ordinary to carry on a business as a sole trader.

That is you, for tax and legal purposes in the jurisdictions within which you reside, an individual, operating a business by yourself as yourself.

lm4112• 4 months ago

The whole Google Play experience is awful.

Recent things I've had to do:

1) Re-submit an app after it was rejected and labelled a gambling app (it wasn't even close - a 15 second look by a real human would have seen that. This one was even appealed and the support was utterly useless. I ended up changing one word and re-submitting the app, approved no problem.

2) An existing app, in the Play store for years but a nice app - only about 500 installs. I had to submit a new version for no reason whatsoever... Except to keep the customers developer account active.

Those are just issues I've dealt with in the last month or two.

Every single time, Google Support is completely useless - including the appeals process, which is an absolute joke.

umvi• 4 months ago

Not to mention if you made one app in college and then didn't keep up with the SDK updates, Google perma-closes the entire Play account such that the only way to publish a new app is by creating a brand new gmail account

fakwandi_priv• 4 months ago

So what was the word you changed?

thayne2• 4 months ago

Maybe it's better now, though I doubt it, but my experience publishing on the Apple app store years ago wasn't any better.

hansvm• 4 months ago

That sounds a lot like my experience as an Apple Developer too, with the added bonus (unclear from your description if you experienced this too) that they took my money before the verification process was finished and wouldn't refund it once their AI couldn't connect my face to my ID and wouldn't let me connect with a real person (the first dozen times were on them, but after that it was maybe my fault for including a middle finger in the photographs).

Is there a way around this shitocracy?

cuu508• 4 months ago

Is there a way around this shitocracy?

Refuse to play. Switch to technologoy that the shitocracy has not gotten around to yet, or, eventually, pick up woodworking.

_66o• 4 months ago

Going through hell with Apple Developer too. I didn't have to do much in terms of verification (probably because I created an account as an individual) but app submission is another story: - first time I got rejected for mentioning a name of a third party in my app description. The app description said: DISCLAIMER: not affiliated with xxx

- after fixing the app description I got rejected for using my app name(?!), multiple back and forths with the reviewer got me nowhere, they just copy pasted the same response not addressing my messages at all

- filled the app store review board appeal, it's been 5 days and I've got no response.

At this point I'm seriously considering rewriting the app for MacOS and distributing myself. I can't imagine going through all of this with every app update, it's beyond ridiculous.

pjmlp• 4 months ago

Develop only Web applications, that are mobile friendly, notice I said mobile friendly, not PWA.

However, thanks to many of us that only favour Chrome like IE of yore, and ship it alongside their "native" applications, the Web is nowadays ChromeOS Application Platform, so we are only a couple of years away of Google owning that as well.

edarchis• 4 months ago

Play the GDPR card, even if you're not from Europe. Find their DPO and state that you want to appeal the automated decision to a human.

Companies operating in Europe must provide a clear way to appeal automated decisions: https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/publicat...

You might not have a way to actually file a complaint against them but quite often, their legal department will just have a quick look at your case and just give you what you want without bothering to tell you anything. Worth a shot.

buzer• 4 months ago

Is there a way around this shitocracy?

If you are in EU you could try complaining to your local DPA. That certainly sounds like "automated decision which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her" which is against article 22 of GDPR. Or you could consider suing them directly at least for the refund.

Outside of EU maybe try passing law like GDPR to actually get some rights back.

hbn• 4 months ago

I released an Android app to the Play Store ~10 years ago and the most important advice people were always sounding alarms about online in Android dev communities was to not publish under your real Google account you care about, because it's not unlikely a bot will ban your entire account because of some vague infraction that's near impossible to appeal.

Google seems to actively hate people who develop for their platforms. Which I don't believe is a good move with their current hand, where young people in wealthy countries (i.e. the future of people who will spend money on apps) are something like 90% iPhone users these days.

hnburnsy4• 4 months ago

What Android versions is this applicable to?

hnburnsy4• 4 months ago

Found the answer...

What Android versions will the developer verification requirements be enforced on? It will apply to all certified Android devices running Android 7 or higher. These updates are delivered through Google Play services to help maintain consistent security across the ecosystem. Last updated: March 23, 2026

ncr100• 4 months ago

So, Google TVs too?

throwaway858253• 4 months ago

A 'safe' app store would promote and prioritize open source apps compiled on public auditable runners.

pxc• 4 months ago

F-Droid is in fact what an app store concerned about user safety looks like. Nobody gets hoodwinked into installing apps that track them or sell their data or otherwise abuse them on F-Droid.

throwaway858253• 4 months ago

It is yes. Their build system is somewhat arcane and difficult so some apps dont get updated from the git repo though. It could use some polish.

selectively3• 4 months ago

This is non-technical. F-Droid is horrible. https://privsec.dev/posts/android/f-droid-security-issues/#5...

F-Droid has not meaningfully improved since that piece was written, either. No one should use F-Droid.

izacus5• 4 months ago

F-Droid is so irrelevant that it doesn't even begin being targeted by supply chain and scam attacks. Being obscure always help with this, but pretending that it's the same threat model is absolutely false.

tubs• 4 months ago

Yeah like npm! Don’t think there’s ever been security issues in that.

saintfire• 4 months ago

I download all apps on my phone from the bleeding edge of npm. /s

When npm has supply chain attacks it's still news.

On Google Play Store its actually noteworthy when an app isn't some level of malware loaded with ads and questionable permissions.

0xbadcafebee• 4 months ago

tl;dr how to install an app from unverified developer ("advanced flow")

  1. enable developer mode
  2. confirm you aren't being coached
  3. restart your phone and reauthenticate
  4. come back after 24 hours and unlock device
  5. install app from unverified developer, option of enabling for 7 days or indefinitely

This is apparently a one-time process. Advanced flow for users launches globally August 2026. Verification requirement kicks in September 2026.

Personally I am hopeful that people work toward a completely new, non-Android OS. 15 GB of space on my phone, and 1.5 GB of RAM, is dedicated to Android OS alone. This design, and the control this company (and the mobile providers, and device manufacturers) have over the mobile world, is ridiculous. Let's start over.

robotnikman• 4 months ago

15 GB of space on my phone, and 1.5 GB of RAM, is dedicated to Android OS alone

The original Droid phone I used had only 256mb of memory, and could still multitask and run multiple apps at once with that limited memory. Its crazy how bloated things have become over the years.

0x1ceb00da• 4 months ago

Nah. This sucks. My banking app refuses to open if devtools are enabled. 24h window means I can't do dev work on my personal phone.

jlokier• 4 months ago

I have that problem too, and it's a banking app I use nearly every day.

Needing to turn Developer mode off and on every time I open the app is really annoying.

It was extra annoying when I needed to log all my phone's Bluetooth HCI protocol activity for a day for product development. I wouldn't be able to take that measurement using a separate dev-specific phone, because it wouldn't contain realistic usage.

fsflover10• 4 months ago

I am hopeful that people work toward a completely new, non-Android OS

Mobian, PureOS, postmarketOS already exist. Sent from my Librem 5.

__fst__• 4 months ago

Let everyone who wants it be safe using the Google App Store. But please let me do stupid/experimental things with my phone.

sylos• 4 months ago

The google app store isn't even that safe. This is all just stupid

krick• 4 months ago

So, anyway, how do we make sure that our phones don't turn into a pumpkin on a set date? I suppose it's all shit long term, but at the very least I don't want to be forced to look for a solution before I need a new phone. So, what do you do? Can you just disable android updates somehow and it will solve the issue? Or it is already a ticking bomb that will be activated on the set date no matter what?

userbinator4• 4 months ago

Root and kill everything that could be used to remotely install software without your consent.

thomasgeelens• 4 months ago

oh so I'm not the only one, always believed Apple was the hard ass but I've been having a better experience with them.

glenstein3• 4 months ago

Don't love it but (1) it's addressing a serious problem and I'm not sure what the alternative is and (2) if you all remember the starting place, it was staggeringly, dramatically worse, practically a death sentence for F-Droid and seemingly testing the waters for if they could simply power through and do it despite objection.

This is a major course correction that doesn't kill F-Droid. A one time 24 hour hoop to jump through and then never again is monumentally better than losing F-Droid forever.

userbinator4• 4 months ago

It's only a "serious problem" because they want you to think it is.

snackbroken• 4 months ago

"Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man.

You take a step forward.

He takes a step back.

"Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man.

supern0va• 4 months ago

Is it a serious problem that you can run whatever software you want on your computer? Should we make it so that no one can do that without permission to protect them?

I recommend Cory Doctorow's talk on why this is a serious problem for society:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Com...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

renewiltord• 4 months ago

Yes, lots of vulnerable users get harmed by modern tech. E.g. people have lost their minds using AI, their livelihoods using smartphones, their life savings using the Internet. In general, I prefer a solution where any mental health issue (age-related infirmity, ADHD, etc.) result in protection from modern exploitative tech like this.

Every application use for such people should be supervised by a government official trained to ensure you are not hurting yourself.

This way people who want to use AI, smartphones, or the Internet can do so if they’re healthy and the mentally disabled can be protected. We know that this need exists because even on this “Hacker” News forum everyone gets very upset when a mentally disabled person gets injured after AI use.

bitwize3• 4 months ago

Not enough people give a shit about "general purpose computing" to matter. They use computers for a few things and as long as they can do those things they're fine with it. My wife loves all her Apple gear. It provides her with a wonderful, curated experience. Okay, maybe it hasn't been so good with recent iOS releases but it still beats Android or Microslop. Being able to hack, modify, or install arbitrary stuff on your device is something only a minority of a minority care about, statistical noise in the quarterly sales figures. When you compare that to the harm done by malware, illegal or indecent material, and the negative blowback to YOUR OS's reputation—or worse, the "felony contempt of business model" enabled by a general-purpose OS (piracy, ad blocking, etc.)—it's a no-brainer to implement restrictions.

cyberax2• 4 months ago

Is it a serious problem that you can run whatever software you want on your computer?

Unfortunately. I talked about this a bit on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/1063741/

The problem is very, very real. I don't doubt that Google also has ulterior motives, but in this case they _are_ justified at least partially.

glenstein3• 4 months ago

Could you try to put more of a effort into keeping the specifics in view and not turning the whole conversation into a view from 10,000 ft filled with drive by generalities? You might as well be linking to a Wikipedia entry on 1984.

We have moved away from an existential threat to F-Droid to a speed bump which lets it live. As is often the case, it's a both can be true situation in that I don't like the ratcheting up of restrictions, but think possible without contradiction to note how the change over time has impacted F-Droid compared to prior iterations of the proposed policy.

It disappoints me that people on HN aren't sufficiently in control of their own attention to the point of being able to show up to that conversation, as the fate of F-Droid has been central to this saga if you've been following it over previous HN threads.

Zak2• 4 months ago

It's pretending to address a serious issue while giving Google significant power to limit distribution of apps Google doesn't like, which could sometimes include legal apps that certain governments don't like such as the recently famous ICEBlock.

Google says they don't intend to do that, but even if I believe that's their current intention, they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future. Incentives predict outcomes more reliably than intentions.

I say it's pretending because scammers are good at shifting tactics. If convincing users to install malware ceases to be the path of least resistance, they'll convince users to install legitimate remote access utilities, hand over credentials directly, or some other scheme I haven't thought up because I'm not a scammer.

fc417fc80222• 4 months ago

they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future.

The reality is far worse than that. Remember FBI vs Apple? That defense came down to Apple not having software in place that could facilitate the demand being made of them. If they'd had such a system they would presumably have been required to comply.

The government can presumably get an illegal app forcibly removed from an app store but at present you could still install it yourself. With this system they could compel Google to block it entirely.

fluoridation• 4 months ago

What's the serious problem?

pserwylo• 4 months ago

F-Droid has spent many years trying to step out of the "only for technical/power users" into the "This is a tool that normal phone users should have and use". A one time 24hr wait moves back to the "F-Droid is only for technical users" big time.

Bought a new phone? Moved from iPhone to Android? Want help from your friend/family member/librarian/other to setup your new phone for getting apps? Sorry, you need to come back a day later before you can actually use it.

Guess what the normal/non-tech user does in this 24hr period? Go to Play Store, install a bunch of apps, forget that you had the desire to use an alternative.

This indeed does make F-Droid no longer a tool for normal people, but only a tool for those willing to do a bunch of "Advanced" things on their phone. By definition, not regular users.

TiredOfLife2• 4 months ago

It addresses Youtube app showing an ad that installs malware from Google Play?

tvbusy• 4 months ago

Phone sellers should enforce a mandatory 30 days no use after purchasing to ensure that people are not harmed by phone usage.

Newspapers should only report news at a minimum 7 days after the fact to ensure accurate reporting.

Toasters should lock everything in until it's completely room temperature to avoid accidental burns.

These are serious problems.

glenstein3• 4 months ago

Straw man arguers should draft a comment and not send it for 24 hours to make sure they're not strawmanning.

userbinator4• 4 months ago

Older Androids which are fully rootable and unbrickable are cheap (maybe even monetarily free) and will let you continue to have freedom despite what Google wants.

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

stavros3• 4 months ago

Older Androids won't exist for long.

userbinator4• 4 months ago

That's what Google wants, but they're not getting their way with mine.

greentea23• 4 months ago

My pixel 1 is still going strong. Several phones released just last year are bootloader unlockable and rootable, and those should last at least a decade if cared for.

m132• 4 months ago

Is there any information about how the "advanced flow" will be implemented? According to keepandroidopen.org, this is going to be handled by Google Play Services. Does it mean it will be automatically installed via the silent, always-on GMS update mechanism and I should root my devices and remove GMS altogether if I don't want this?

ecshafer• 4 months ago

Android is for everyone. It’s built on a commitment to an open and safe platform. Users should feel confident installing apps, no matter where they get them from.

This intro immediately tells me that whatever comes after will be horrible for users and developers. Surprise surprise, I was right. Software to "verify" side loaded apps is a bad, anti user idea.

postsantum• 4 months ago

It's like a slimy HR telling you to come over for a chat. You immediately know it's not a chat

Vinnl• 4 months ago

Whenever I find that I need to install something from the Play Store rather than from F-Droid, it fills me with dread, because I'm not confident about what those apps do behind the scenes.

varispeed• 4 months ago

I am waiting for Google to require bodily fluid sample to verify identity.

einpoklum3• 4 months ago

"side loaded apps" is merely a pejorative Google and Apple use for "apps".

What they call "apps" are "apps that we like and we distribute to you under our control of both yourself as a registered user and the developers".

Well, I guess I'll need to install a non-Android distribution then. I hope one would be available for my phone by the end of the year :-(

shit_game• 4 months ago

At this point, I think I would prefer to carry a dumb flip phone for SMS and phone calls, and a smartphone-shaped generic touchscreen linux computer for everything else. It's becoming disturbingly impossible to find the former, and practically impossible (IME) to find the former.

Does anyone here have experience using Ubuntu Touch? That's the closest thing I've seen to "generic touchscreen linux" for mobile phone hardware. I'd love a device that works for multimedia, navigation, web browsing, and a handful of APKs like various chat apps (and really anything can can arbitrarily use the hardware), but it seems like tying a cellular modem to this ends up fucking up the whole dream because of carrier and manufacturer motivations/compensations.

marcprux3• 4 months ago

I am part of the team running keepandroidopen.org and corralling the signatures for the open letter opposing this program. We've been trying to get Google to reverse course on this program ever since it was announced.

As it stands, Android Developer Verification (ADV) is a death sentence for F-Droid, Obtainium, and other competitors to the Google Play Store, both commercial and non-commercial. We are disappointed that they are still trying to steamroll this through in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

There are numerous reasons to object to the program, but a few of the top ones are:

1. You own your computer, and you should be the sole decision-maker for what software you can install on it.

2. "Malware" means whatever Google says it means, and their terms and conditions change daily; today malware is banking scams, tomorrow it is … ad-blocking? VPNs? Their decisions are un-reviewable and opaque, and they have obvious commercial incentives to block certain kinds of (otherwise-legal) software.

3. Centralizing global developer registrations through a US corporation makes it subject to the rules (and whims) of the current regime. Citizens of sanctioned countries or members of sanctioned entities (like the International Criminal Court) will be legally barred from registering, blocking them from creating and distributing software _anywhere_ in the world (not just the US).

4. Scenarios that Google claims ADV will protect against — such as high-pressure phone calls manipulating vulnerable users into installing scam apps — have _already_ been addressed by incremental improvements to Android security over the years, such as "Enhanced Fraud Protection" introduced in Android 13 (and expanded in Android 15). Android has incrementally improved its security features over its near 20 years of existence. There is no evidence that anything has suddenly changed to justify such a disproportionate and extreme lockdown.

5. Being required to pay Google for the privilege of uploading your government identification so that you might be permitted to contribute to the Android software ecosystem is such an abominable insult to the developers that helped build the platform. It deserves all the utter contempt that has been heaped upon it thus far, and begs regulatory scrutiny from those few countries that still have the courage to stand up to these bullies.

We emphatically recommend against developers signing up for this program or endorsing it in any way.

fsflover10• 4 months ago

I am part of the team running keepandroidopen.org

Perhaps your team should promote GNU/Linux phones instead, which do not depend on a megacorp.

Sent from my Librem 5.

RandyOrion3• 4 months ago

Thank you for standing against the Android Developer Verification enforced by Google. Now in addition to stopping using Youtube, replacing chrome with ungoogled chromium, I'm moving to de-googled AOSP builds, e.g., lineageOS, insted of stock OEM ROMs.

curt152• 4 months ago

Are there any anti-trust angles to this?

wisenet• 4 months ago

Should we protest by graying out app icons and assets.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47354917

creatonez• 4 months ago

However, our recent analysis found over 90 times more malware from sideloaded sources than on Google Play

Google has seemingly never seen an elderly person's phone, where it is completely infected with crap including literal popup ads (that somehow overlay other apps), yet all of it was downloaded from GPlay.

1970-01-01• 4 months ago

100.00% this take. Google is redefining "malware" to fit their corporate narrative so ads-with-ads-with-tracking is labeled as fine wine. It simply cannot be malware because that truth would decimate their shareholders. Malware by any other definition remains software that disrupts the user's ability to operate the device:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware

https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/malware

https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ddos/glossary/malware/

https://www.cisco.com/site/us/en/products/security/what-is-m...

https://www.britannica.com/technology/malware

https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/malware

https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/threats/what-is-ma...

https://www.mcafee.com/learn/malware/

https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/what-is/malware.html

https://www.t-mobile.com/home-internet/the-signal/internet-h...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malware

VHRanger• 4 months ago

Remember when we had the term "spyware" for a class of malware?

I remember

CobrastanJorji• 4 months ago

Both things might be true. Sideloaded apps are probably way more likely to be malicious, but also most installed malware/crapware is quite likely coming from Google Play.

xigoi6• 4 months ago

I’ve never found a malicious app on F-Droid.

TiredOfLife2• 4 months ago

Worst of all is that the ad that leads to that download is usually in Googles Youtube app

badpenny• 4 months ago

My recent analysis found that Google is 90 times scummier than other companies.

My analysis consisted of pulling a completely baseless number out of my arse that fit my agenda.

Xunjin2• 4 months ago

Which analysis, where is the data? Where is the independent peer review to conclude what you see is actually real?

I'm so tired of companies claiming stuff with "we did research, just trust me bro" and providing no source to be scrutinized.

xnx• 4 months ago

"Confirm the accessibility permissions to get $7 SolitaireBux"

jaimex22• 4 months ago

The only malware I've had to clean off peoples devices has come from the Google Play Store.

jaimex22• 4 months ago

It's kinda funny. I used to run custom roms all Android phones came with a shit OS.

I stopped because Pixel AOSP phones were actually decent.

Now I guess i'll be buying phones based on which I can flash with custom roms again.

fensgrim• 4 months ago

good luck finding a phone with custom ROM support, when there will be no phones with bootloader unlock available :(

donatj• 4 months ago

I would genuinely like to know more about these supposed users who are side loading things and getting hoodwinked. It seems high enough friction that you have to have something of an idea of what you're doing to begin with. Everyone I've known who is side loaded anything has been reasonably technical.

My dad on the other hand, who worked for Control Data in the 1980s regularly installs some of the scummiest apps imaginable, and they're all from the Play Store proper.

Launchers that don't actually launch things and serve ads. Apps that launch full screen ads while you're doing things saying your device is infected. Absolute trash.

Like maybe just maybe put some energy into going after the stuff in the Play Store first. As the Play Store exists now, it is unsafe.

bsimpson• 4 months ago

Have you seen those YouTube videos of people punking scammers? Scammers will convince people to drive to Target, buy gift cards, and read the credentials out over the phone. Those same people can surely talk you through tapping out a dialog flow.

That's presumably why there's a lockout period - it keeps a scammer from reasonably holding the line until they can pressure you to finish it.

yjftsjthsd-h2• 4 months ago

Have you seen those YouTube videos of people punking scammers? Scammers will convince people to drive to Target, buy gift cards, and read the credentials out over the phone. Those same people can surely talk you through tapping out a dialog flow.

...if the scammer can get the victim to physically drive to Target a buy a bunch of gift cards, what makes you think they need to install anything on your phone? Having RCE on a human is more useful than RCE on a device.

geokon• 4 months ago

Does anyone know how this will work vis a vis China, where Android is everywhere, but Google is not?

Will bypassing this bureaucracy be just a matter of buying a Chinese Android phone?

RandyOrion3• 4 months ago

Please no.

If you want to install APKs directly on Android phones selling in China, you'll face even more draconian restrictions imposed by both Chinese OEMs and Chinese government, e.g., cannot install telegram [1], cannot install VPNs [2], called by local police station after installing VPNs [3], and so on. And you do not have the freedom to even talk about these restrictions freely without getting sued or censored.

[1] https://xcancel.com/whyyoutouzhele/status/168915238841261670...

[2] https://xcancel.com/whyyoutouzhele/status/197843066556268971...

[3] https://xcancel.com/whyyoutouzhele/status/170299205759627676...

ori_b• 4 months ago

If they're taking on verification, are they also taking on liability? Do we get to sue them if grandma gets scammed through an app they allow onto their phone?

eviks2• 4 months ago

Nice try, but no, shit only flows down.

RandyOrion3• 4 months ago

Yeah, let's hold Google accountable. Is there a way to practice anti-trust laws?

myko• 4 months ago

Google freaked out that Apple had a better reputation and went all in on fucking their Android store up. Everything about it is worse now than it was before. So tiring.

bitwize3• 4 months ago

I'd say Hackernews knows enough people at Google to raise a stink about this, but it's not going to do any good. Sometime at the last WEF or Bilderberg meeting it was decided that KYC level identity verification should be required to use a computer or the internet, with more stringent requirements to program one. This, and much worse, is going to happen whether we like it or not.

DeathArrow• 4 months ago

If I do software for Windows, Linux or FreeBSD I don't need verification. And potential users aren't required to get software only from a certain app store.

This is a case of companies forcing things on us "for our own good" and them knowing better than us what is good for us or not.

mhitza• 4 months ago

It's a pathetic excuse of a reason. Google Ads is a mechanism for scam delivery, probably 90 times more effective than sideloaded scam apps.

BatteryMountain• 4 months ago

Good job google. You just convinced our entire business to abandon our app (utilities company) and only target web. We are done with this shit. All our resources the next two weeks will be to fill in the gaps in our web clientzone so our thousands of customers can still buy electricity and pay water bill and have a similar experience than the app (it's 90% the same anyway).

Oh and my three personal apps that I installed via adb (not released on playstore) - the moment they stop working on my phone or hassle me about verification, I will get in my car and go buy an iPhone.

Next will be to degoogle the rest of my life, which is luckily only gmail. Guess how long it will take me to port out? Less than two days.

I only let companies violate me once. Then I'm out.

Play store is the biggest piece of trash malware system that exists today, but us normal businesses have to pull teeth and spend days jumping through hoops to get an app out, but the playstore is filled with infinite garbage that rot childrens brains.

Wake up.

arcmutex• 4 months ago

Great. This will make web apps popular again. Let's take back the web. HTML, JavaScript, CSS!

sgt• 4 months ago

It’s only when a user tries to install an unregistered app that they’ll require ADB or advanced flow, helping us keep the broader community safe while preserving the flexibility for our power users.

So, we have a sideloaded app now. Which has been increasingly tricky for our users to install. The warning they get is hard to understand. Does this mean essentially the end of sideloading?

takluyver2• 4 months ago

If you get 'verified' by Google and sign your app, sideloading shouldn't change. That means money and ID checks, or a free 'hobbyist' carve out if you have <20 users.

If you don't want to play their game, sideloading will get substantially harder.

Andebugulin• 4 months ago

My experience was worse than just frustrating verification - it cost me money twice.

I submitted my government-issued ID and bank statements multiple times. Each time rejected, no specific explanation why. After several rounds I gave up, assuming my developer account would at least stay dormant until I felt like trying again.

It didn't. Google deleted the account entirely. No warning, no refund of the €25 registration fee or whatever it costed. When I eventually wanted to publish again, I had to create a new account and pay again. The second time around they accepted my driving license - the same type of document category they had rejected before.

So the real cost of a bad verification experience isn't just time. If you give up and walk away, you lose your fee and start from zero. That's the part that stung, at least for me.

Steve16384• 4 months ago

Even once you've managed to verify, Google love throwing more challenges at you if you want to keep your apps in the store. "You need to declare your blood type or we will remove your apps in 30 days". I removed my apps myself as it was turning from a hobby to an unpaid job just to keep the apps in the store.

fredgrott• 4 months ago

Sounds like age verification exp in EU....

Maybe not expose potential internet users to such as high obstacle if your goal is to get their eyeballs to buy your advertised product???

tsoukase• 4 months ago

In the last few years all apps I install in a phone come outside of Play Store, because either they are full of ads, throttle their usage or simply similar ones don't exist. Without them the phone loses half of it's functionality, which is pretty much. So, I am willing to wait a day in the "advanced flow" to keep a multi-year experience.

wg0• 4 months ago

I'll probably ship PWAs but hope those are not killed by Google.

ChoGGi• 4 months ago

our recent analysis found over 90 times more malware from sideloaded sources than on Google Play.

So, what I'm being told is; there's lots of malware on Google Play? Thank goodness for f droid (for now).

paprikanotfound• 4 months ago

Does anyone know if Chinese developers will be forced into paying for a Google Dev account too?

einpoklum3• 4 months ago

Android is for everyone. It’s built on a commitment to a... safe platform.

These two statements contradict. When something is public, it is not entirely safe; and to make something safe, there is exclusion of practices, behaviors, and often people.

So as an extra layer of security, we are rolling out Android developer verification to help prevent malicious actors from hiding behind anonymity to repeatedly spread harm.

1. Well, then, surely Google can't be in charge of this process, because they are a malicious actor, known to manipulate social media search results and engage in mass surveillance of its users. And that's in addition to analyzing their personal data to try to manipulate them into buying things; which is called "targeted advertizing", but I would also characterize as harm.

2. To be slightly less tongue-in-cheek: Imagine that a two would prevent entry of unverified people - you know, to prevent malicious anonymous actors from bringing harm. That would be ridiculous - nobody should be able to restrict public space. Well, the space of computation and communications via our handheld phones/computers is enough of a public space to merit the same principle. Which means that it is not acceptable for it to be under Google/Alphabet's control. Government regulation could mitigate this problem, but then, governments collude with large corporations and often approve of such restrictions.

benrutter• 4 months ago

The latest shift to lock down Google's android pushed me recently to install /e/OS. On paper it makes those kind of projects a lot harder, but its prompted me to be a bit more considered about what software projects I want to use/support.

Really glad I have done that - I've been a 'boiled frog' of sorts on Android for a while now. Not happy with being continually more and more locked down, but not quite unhappy enough to shift. Feels like a breath of fresh air to have software that's built to serve me, rather than just to serve me ads.

trashb• 4 months ago

Maybe it's just me but what happened to "don't send your government id to anyone". I am from the EU but this is what was indoctrinated to me. Just seems very strange to all off a sudden send all this information to any company you require a service from.

Also the person is not the company, why is Google making the developer identify oneself while many apps are released under a company? My understanding is that Google has been mishandling this for a while but with the verification linked to a government id that just seems like another can of worms.

A few scenarios to consider:

- The developer is fired/resigns and the company does not want to be associated with the developer, for example if the developer is convicted for something.

- The developer is fired/resigns and the developer does not want to be associated with the company, developer found out about certain practices of the company they don't condone.

- The developer and the company part in good faith, however one of them is being exploited/pressured by a third party to abuse the relationship to the app.

- The developer or the company is on legal hold due to legal issues, arrests, malpractice etc.

- The developer passes away or the company ceases to exist.

- How does this work if you are making an app as a developer for hire, when entering into a contract with a publisher for example. Who will verify and how will that work (especially on small scale apps).

solaire_oa• 4 months ago

However, our recent analysis found over 90 times more malware from sideloaded sources than on Google Play

https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-...

The scale of this threat is significant: our recent analysis found over 50 times more malware from internet-sideloaded sources than on apps available through Google Play

Bald face lies are getting baldier.

greatgib• 4 months ago

This world is really dystopic. It amazes me that now anything restricting your rights and liberty can pass so easily.

   For students and hobbyists: To keep Android accessible to everyone, we're building a free, no government ID required, limited distribution account so you can share your work with up to 20 devices. You only need an email account to get started. Sign up for early access. We’ll send invites in June.

Just imagine if in the computer world, Bigtech monopoly had managed to force everyone to submit is ID document to an american private gatekeeper to be able to distribute applications... But now it almost look normal most of us.

Especially in countries like Thailand or Brazil were it is implemented now, just imagine that if Trump decide to go crazy any day, suddenly you would not be allowed to create or have user install your apps normally, just like that...

Android Developer Verification

Related Stories