Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android Developer Verification

android-developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 345 posts

Re: Android Developer Verification

#141

Post by tedk-42 »

ethagnawl wrote: post #12

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…

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).

Re: Android Developer Verification

#142

Post by m4rtink »

foxes wrote: post #136
matheusmoreira wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What? So you dont value freedom at all? Theres other alternatives too.. graphene, lineage

Sailfish OS - they even run a device preorder right now.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#143

Post by heyethan »

mrtksn wrote: post #35

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 ban…

[flagged]

Re: Android Developer Verification

#144

Post by fc417fc802 »

kube-system wrote: post #137
fc417fc802 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a passport solve that? Most small private companies are entirely opaque. A government ID doesn't help you determine authorization. It won't even help you determine ownership since anyone doing things sensibly will be using a registered agent to hold the company on his behalf. The correct approach here (AFAIK) is to punt the trust decision to the bank by requiring payment with a method that you can confidentl…

Yeah I would imagine that the value the get out of a passport is not anything to do with validating a company (they’re cheap and easy to make anyway) but validating the person (which is not a throwaway entity)

Fair point.

However that invites those bad scenarios where someone gets blacklisted by BigTech in some manner, later gets hired by a small business, the new employer adds an association to the blacklisted account, and suddenly the company app is banned from the app store seemingly without reason. At least a few such stories have appeared on HN over the years.

I feel like pay to play ought to be sufficient because in addition to being a barrier to entry it also provides funds for moderation efforts.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#145

Post by wishfish »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #124
JLCarveth wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I did something similar. Wanted a Pixel with Graphene OS but the screen hurt my eyes. Went with a Motorola with an IPS screen. Uninstalled or disabled all the crap. Never logged into Google. Went with Obtanium and F-Droid for most software. Aurora for a couple of apps that were only on the Play Store. Used NetGuard with a whitelist to lock it all down.

After all that was done, the phone felt like mine in a way that my iPhone doesn't. Was a good feeling. With luck, the Motorola + Graphene partnership will produce phones with screens better than the Pixel and I can keep doing this.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#146

Post by EvanAnderson »

wishfish wrote: post #145
EvanAnderson wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I did something similar. Wanted a Pixel with Graphene OS but the screen hurt my eyes. Went with a Motorola with an IPS screen. Uninstalled or disabled all the crap. Never logged into Google. Went with Obtanium and F-Droid for most software. Aurora for a couple of apps that were only on the Play Store. Used NetGuard with a whitelist to lock it all down. After all that was done, the phone felt like mine in a way that m…

I ended up with a Motorola phone, too (albeit with an AMOLED screen so not the model you have). I got hooked on Motorola phones because of the "chop/chop" flashlight gesture. I don't think I can use a phone without that gesture ever again! >smileI'm hopeful, too, re: Motorola + Graphene. I wanted to use Graphene last fall wehn I got the new phone but I was committed to not giving Google any money.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#147

Post by TGower »

circuit10 wrote: post #85
TGower wrote: post #31

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 li…

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)

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.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#149

Post by AussieWog93 »

Dwedit wrote: post #134
umvi wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Forcing people to keep up with SDK updates is a bad thing in itself. Let people target the earliest possible feature set and make the app run on as many phones as possible rather than showing scary messages to people due to targeting an older API.

I think the problem is that older SDK versions allowed you to do things like scan local WiFi names to get location data, without requiring the location permission.

So bad actors would just target lower SDK versions and ignore the privacy improvements

Re: Android Developer Verification

#150

Post by charcircuit »

Zak wrote: post #90
DashAnimal wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily like the idea of a company wiping their hands clean and saying "well - not our problem!" either though. Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this - they should be proactively helping their most vulnerable users. That is the "do no evil" motto. I don't know enough to say whether this method is the right approach however.

Saying that computer/OS manufacturers should prevent malware is effectively equivalent to saying that they should not sell general purpose computers to the public. A general purpose computer is one that can run any program the users tells it to, which necessarily includes one that's malicious. That doesn't necessarily preclude helping the user to notice when they're doing something dangerous, but a waiting period bef…

The general consumer does not care about the distinction of if a product is technically a "general purpose computer" or not. They care about if the device is able to do what they want from it, providing them value.
Post reply on HN