Android Developer Verification • Hacker News Board

Re: Android Developer Verification

#241

Post by afferi300rina » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 8:29 AM UTC

Muromec wrote: post #235

fc417fc802 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That all makes perfect sense but consider that if they simply punted to the bank as I described they would still get the same benefits only with even less complexity. The bank fundamentally has to do robust identity verification. Any party that needs to handle payments while also lacking a reason to be good at performing in house identify verification really ought to make use of the bank because you are highly unlike…

The bank has to perform the authorization and identity checks, but the bank will not make them for you , they do them for themselves based on their own risk analysis. The scope of authorization could also be different based on who it's presented to. The authorization is not transitive so to say. >As an aside, I suspect that leaving it to the bank would also provide additional legal protection If it would, they will h…

Google wants the authority of a gatekeeper without the overhead of human accountability. They automate the "no" but offer no path to a human "yes."

Re: Android Developer Verification

#242

Post by fsflover » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 8:30 AM UTC

marcprux wrote: post #103

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 tha…

> 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.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#243

Post by fsflover » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 8:32 AM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #117

stavros wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Older Androids won't exist for long.

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

How about security updates?

Re: Android Developer Verification

#244

Post by 63stack » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 8:32 AM UTC

mcsniff wrote: post #42

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…

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 o…

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

What would you consider broken?

Re: Android Developer Verification

#245

Post by fsflover » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 8:33 AM UTC

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #50

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 requi…

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

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

Re: Android Developer Verification

#246

Post by fsflover » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 8:35 AM UTC

cyberax wrote: post #185

supern0va wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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.

Why doesn't Debian have this serious problem?

Re: Android Developer Verification

#247

Post by Muromec » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 8:37 AM UTC

afferi300rina wrote: post #241

Muromec wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bank has to perform the authorization and identity checks, but the bank will not make them for you , they do them for themselves based on their own risk analysis. The scope of authorization could also be different based on who it's presented to. The authorization is not transitive so to say. >As an aside, I suspect that leaving it to the bank would also provide additional legal protection If it would, they will h…

Google wants the authority of a gatekeeper without the overhead of human accountability. They automate the "no" but offer no path to a human "yes."

That's all fine, they can want their wants, but then, once the bad cop writes them strongly worded letter and they start throwing tantrums over "regulation".

Re: Android Developer Verification

#248

Post by lern_too_spel » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 8:45 AM UTC

xigoi wrote: post #239

IshKebab wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody said it did. Google is not doing this to kill F-Droid.

Why do you think they are doing it?

F-Droid still works the same as it did before. This just means that McDonald's can distribute its apps on its website without showing a scary warning on install on Google's Android builds.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#249

Post by jeroenhd » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 8:46 AM UTC

xigoi wrote: post #239

IshKebab wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody said it did. Google is not doing this to kill F-Droid.

Why do you think they are doing it?

To stop scammer-guided malware installation, and probably those "download whatsappupdate.apk for free new emoji" ads that pop up all the time.

Google doesn't care about F-Droid one way or the other. It's a niche project that barely registers on the scale of all Android users.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#250

Post by sgt » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 8:48 AM UTC

> 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?