Android Developer Verification • Hacker News Board

Re: Android Developer Verification

#261

Post by eimrine » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 9:24 AM UTC

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #257

eimrine wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The share of power users on iOS might be larger than expected because a lot of people working in tech fight computers for a living and prefer their phones to be simple appliances assigned to a relatively focused set of tasks.

You are talking not about Apple's walled garden. Don't confuse a skilled power user with a pesky celebrity who always prefers one button over two buttons because of complexity issue.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#262

Post by cosmic_cheese » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 9:47 AM UTC

eimrine wrote: post #261

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The share of power users on iOS might be larger than expected because a lot of people working in tech fight computers for a living and prefer their phones to be simple appliances assigned to a relatively focused set of tasks.

You are talking not about Apple's walled garden. Don't confuse a skilled power user with a pesky celebrity who always prefers one button over two buttons because of complexity issue.

I am, though. Someone who uses their phone for mail, chat, music, and calls with everything else being done on a proper computer has little to gain from sideloading, and plenty of computer power users use their phones that way.

I know because I’m one of them and something like 70% of my SWE colleagues I’ve known — including Android users — fit that description too. Most have never sideloaded anything and maybe 20% have flashed their phone with an alternative ROM or rooted at some point.

An individual being good with computers or even being capable of programming has little bearing on if they’re also a phone power user.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#263

Post by matheusmoreira » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 9:48 AM UTC

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

GrapheneOS is Android's last hope. They're making great progress with deals with smartphone manufacturers. However, the threat of remote attestation looms eternal. I have essential apps that I cannot afford to lose and if they refuse to work on a non-Google phone the usefulness of GrapheneOS is severely degraded.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#264

Post by Andebugulin » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 9:48 AM UTC

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.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#265

Post by takluyver » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 9:49 AM UTC

fsflover wrote: post #240

izacus wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are Debian repositories also irrelevant? If not, why aren't they targeted?

The XZ utils backdoor made it into Debian repositories undetected, although it was caught before it was in a stable version.

Debian repositories are quite secure, but also pretty limited in scope and extremely slow to update. In practice, basically everyone (I'm sure there are a few counterexamples) using a Linux distro uses it as a base and runs extra software from less tightly controlled sources: Docker hub, PyPI, npm, crates, Flathub etc. It's far easier for attackers to target those, but their openness also means there's a lot of useful stuff there that's not in Debian.

Holding up Debian as a model for security is one step up from the old joke about securing your computer by turning it off and unplugging it. It's true, but it's not really interesting.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#266

Post by kuschku » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 9:58 AM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #233

xigoi wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s that small, how does killing it help anything?

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

Google already knows whether an app is being installed from an app store, such as fdroid, or not.

Just like they allow installing apps from the Play Store without the 24h verification, they should allow installing apps from F-Droid or the Epic Games Store without verification.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#267

Post by Steve16384 » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:04 AM UTC

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.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#268

Post by Vinnl » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:07 AM UTC

ecshafer wrote: post #95

> 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.

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.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#269

Post by linuxmobile » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:09 AM UTC

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

No, the solution is having a linux micro-computer. You buy an iPhone shitphone to do banking and whatnot, and never touch it, then just do everything you need off a retroconsole since it runs literally 120% of the other apps a phone would.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#270

Post by kuschku » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:12 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #256

tredre3 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Jaywalking" is one of those things that's uniquely American. Most other countries have realized that the risk of being hit by a car is its own deterrent. Or restrict the legal ban on crossing to highways, not all streets. The UK Highway Code has a RFC-like use of MUST/SHOULD; MUST parts are legally binding, the parts relating to pedestrians are SHOULD.

The German regulation is also really interesting:

Jaywalking is only illegal if there's a crossing less than 50m away. (And even then it's only a misdemeanor, not a crime).

That also means that city planners have to balance between people jaywalking, putting crossings everywhere, and how crossings slow down traffic.

And every time a car makes a turn, pedestrians automatically have priority. Which creates an implicit zebra crossing.

The only roads exempt from this are autobahn/motorways. These are by law prohibited from having direct access to anything.

That's IMO also a way for the US to get out of its current situation. Set up a rule like that, with a large distance at the beginning, and slowly reduce it over the next few years, forcing local planners to introduce additional crossings, which also reduces through traffic. The separation of streets vs autobahn also mostly prevents stroads.