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

171–180 of 345 posts

Re: Android Developer Verification

#171

Post by tredre3 »

tedk-42 wrote: post #141
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).

> 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%.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#172

Post by jpollock »

john01dav wrote: post #158
AussieWog93 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The newer Android version could simply give empty data (for example, location is 0,0 latitude longitude, there are no visible WiFi networks), when the permission is missing and an app on the old SDK version requests it. Of course, they don't like this because then apps can't easily refuse to work if not allowed to spy.

That can have some very extreme legal ramifications.

Consider - it's a voip dialing client which has a requirement to provide location for E911 support.

If the OS vendor starts providing invalid data, it's the OS vendor which ends up being liable for the person's death.

e.g. https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/texas-sues-vonage-over-91...

which is from 2005, but gives you an idea of the liability involved.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#173

Post by [deleted] »

tredre3 wrote: post #170
tejtm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you jay walk you take the risk of being hit by a car, causing injuries to you, to the driver, and to other nearby people. So I don't understand your analogy? Are you suggesting that pedestrians own the streets and should do what they please, as users own their phone and should have the right to do as they please? Or something else?

[deleted]

Re: Android Developer Verification

#174

Post by drnick1 »

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…

This, but fortunately I don't find the Pixel screen offensive, and so I use Graphene on a Pixel.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#175

Post by warkdarrior »

marcprux wrote: post #119
satvikpendem wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sampling bias.

Perhaps. And yet … 98% opposition from 4K respondents? I'd be very surprised to see any other poll that tilts the other way, regardless of sampling bias.

Does this count? Putin won 88% of the vote in the 2024 Russian election. Not sure of the sampling bias there.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#176

Post by cuu508 »

hansvm wrote: post #156
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…

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…

> 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.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#177

Post by xigoi »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #161
creatonez wrote: post #113

> 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.

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.

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

Re: Android Developer Verification

#178

Post by intended »

heyethan wrote: post #143
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]

You should see the account recovery workflows.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#179

Post by Xirdus »

tredre3 wrote: post #170
tejtm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you jay walk you take the risk of being hit by a car, causing injuries to you, to the driver, and to other nearby people. So I don't understand your analogy? Are you suggesting that pedestrians own the streets and should do what they please, as users own their phone and should have the right to do as they please? Or something else?

The term jaywalking was invented (or possibly hijacked) by automotive lobbyists as part of a campaign in 1910s and 1920s to convince the public and the lawmakers that crossing streets outside designated points is bad and should be made illegal. Before then, it was generally considered basic human right to walk anywhere on a street. Whether you agree that jaywalking is bad or not, that's the history of the term.

Grandparent is saying that the term sideloading was invented in a similar fashion to delegitimize a previously completely normal way to use an electronic device.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#180

Post by xigoi »

skybrian wrote: post #167
gumby271 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's an example of a decentralized system that protects people from scammers?

TLS.
Post reply on HN