Android Developer Verification • Hacker News Board

Re: Android Developer Verification

#271

Post by linuxmobile » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:15 AM UTC

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #262

eimrine wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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% ha…

> Most have never sideloaded anything

I have never told anyone what I, ahem, install.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#272

Post by RandyOrion » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:35 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…

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.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#273

Post by mhitza » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:36 AM UTC

DeathArrow wrote: post #197

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.

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.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#274

Post by curt15 » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:41 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…

Are there any anti-trust angles to this?

Re: Android Developer Verification

#275

Post by badpenny » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:45 AM UTC

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.

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.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#276

Post by RandyOrion » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:47 AM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #152

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?

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

Re: Android Developer Verification

#277

Post by curt15 » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:51 AM UTC

bossyTeacher wrote: post #30

"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.

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.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#278

Post by fredgrott » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 11:01 AM UTC

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???

Re: Android Developer Verification

#279

Post by RandyOrion » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 11:08 AM UTC

geokon wrote: post #148

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?

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...

Re: Android Developer Verification

#280

Post by fc417fc802 » Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 11:16 AM UTC

Muromec wrote: post #237

fc417fc802 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. Which is not that unreasonable even. If a person is flagged for making scam apps, them having publishing rights in a reputable place makes taints the reputation of such place. You should be able to appeal of course and the oauth should not be towards google in the first plac…

That seems at odds with how our society is structured. We treat employees as interchangeable cogs. If someone commits a crime they are tried but their family, friends, and coworkers are not. Guilt by association without any act having been committed seems wholly incompatible with both our principles and common practices.

It's even more nefarious when it comes to BigTech because you can be blacklisted without having committed any actual crime and without anything resembling a trial.

Individual accounts and employee accounts are conceptually distinct. Permitting anything less gives large companies free reign to run roughshod over the individual by unilaterally depriving him of his livelihood.