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

331–340 of 345 posts

Re: Android Developer Verification

#331

Post by glenstein »

tvbusy wrote: post #224
glenstein wrote: post #65

Don't love it but (1) it's addressing a serious problem and I'm not sure what the alternative is and (2) if you all remember the starting place, it was staggeringly, dramatically worse, practically a death sentence for F-Droid and seemingly testing the waters for if they could simply power through and do it despite objection. This is a major course correction that doesn't kill F-Droid. A one time 24 hour hoop to jump…

Phone sellers should enforce a mandatory 30 days no use after purchasing to ensure that people are not harmed by phone usage. Newspapers should only report news at a minimum 7 days after the fact to ensure accurate reporting. Toasters should lock everything in until it's completely room temperature to avoid accidental burns. These are serious problems.

Straw man arguers should draft a comment and not send it for 24 hours to make sure they're not strawmanning.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#333

Post by solaire_oa »

> However, our recent analysis found over 90 times more malware from sideloaded sources than on Google Play

https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-...

> The scale of this threat is significant: our recent analysis found over 50 times more malware from internet-sideloaded sources than on apps available through Google Play

Bald face lies are getting baldier.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#334

Post by Cartoxy »

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?

Decentralized PKI

Re: Android Developer Verification

#335

Post by fc417fc802 »

duckmysick wrote: post #290
fsflover wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument can be refuted by considering Debian repositories. No malware exists there despite it being a good target. It's the FLOSS that solves the malware problem, with a bit of moderation.

There were a few mishaps with PyPI and npm - including in the past week and even today. Not sure if those meet your criteria of FLOSS, but if it does I wouldn't call it solved.

Yeah but supply chain attacks like that can hit literally anything. Debian repos, Play store, an individual publishing on his own website, it's all vulnerable.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#336

Post by wishfish »

ysnp wrote: post #324
wishfish wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It may be worth checking Motorola's OLED models in person (for example the Razr Fold, Razr Ultra and Signature) so see if their Flicker Prevention mode helps. I don't think any IPS models are likely to be supported in the first wave/generation of supported devices in 2027.

I have a Razr 2024 with the pOLED screen. It's bearable with Flicker Protection on, though not nearly as comfortable as an IPS. Heard good things about their AMOLED so will give it a chance if they don't support Graphene on an IPS model.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#337

Post by greatgib »

This world is really dystopic. It amazes me that now anything restricting your rights and liberty can pass so easily.

   For students and hobbyists: To keep Android accessible to everyone, we're building a free, no government ID required, limited distribution account so you can share your work with up to 20 devices. You only need an email account to get started. Sign up for early access. We’ll send invites in June.
Just imagine if in the computer world, Bigtech monopoly had managed to force everyone to submit is ID document to an american private gatekeeper to be able to distribute applications... But now it almost look normal most of us.

Especially in countries like Thailand or Brazil were it is implemented now, just imagine that if Trump decide to go crazy any day, suddenly you would not be allowed to create or have user install your apps normally, just like that...

Re: Android Developer Verification

#338

Post by iggldiggl »

kuschku wrote: post #270
pjc50 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

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

Only for turning traffic, though, i.e. as a pedestrian you still need to yield to traffic coming from the side street. There was some talk of having pedestrians participate more fully in right-of-way-rules, too, i.e. if the side street has a yield/stop sign, traffic would have to yield to crossing pedestrians, too, but so far that idea didn't get anywhere.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#339

Post by iggldiggl »

TGower wrote: post #147
circuit10 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

The other factor would be driving away potential users – even when giving away an app for free, some people might derive satisfaction from knowing that other people find it useful and are actually using it, too.

Re: Android Developer Verification

#340

Post by m4rtink »

anonzzzies wrote: post #195
m4rtink wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But is it open? Seems not; parts are closed so is that not just more of the same?

Yeah, some bits (parts of the GUI & some of the default apps) are still closed.

But I think there is a good chance they will finally open those now - never really made any sense to keep them closed and preventing the community from contributing. Rumors had it it was due to non-cooperative investors.

Not Jolla is finally independent again, so at least in theory they can finally do the right thing. :)

Post reply on HN