Live data from Hacker News

Android developer verification: Early access starts

android-developers.googleblog.com

611–620 of 694 posts

Re: Android developer verification: Early access starts

#611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or someone comes up with an easy adb wrapper and now it becomes the go-to way to install apps.

Shizuku[0][1] already exists, it would certainly suck but it wouldn't be the end of the world. Of course I would be much happier if I didn't need to use Shizuku in the first place. [0]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=moe.shizuku.pr... [1]: https://shizuku.rikka.app/

That uses a workaround based on WiFi debugging even though it's all local. It doesn't run if you're not connected to a trusted WiFi network, you have to set it all up when connecting to a new network, etc.

Not only users are not connected to WiFi all the time, but in many developing countries people often have no WiFi at home and rely on mobile data instead. It's a solution, but not a solution for everyone or a solution that works all the time.

Re: Android developer verification: Early access starts

#612
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That should be up to the bank to decide, and it already is. https://developer.android.com/privacy-and-security/safetynet... None of my banks have complained to me because I'm running a patched YouTube app.

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with what apps you have installed, just whether you have Play Protect enabled. I have Play Protect enabled, and I can still install apps without having to scan them first.

See the listHarmfulApps() documentation on that page.

Re: Android developer verification: Early access starts

#613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like accepting vaders 'altered' deal, and being grateful it hasn't been altered further. If google wants a walled garden, let it wall off it's own devices, but what right does it have to command other manufactures to bow down as well? At this stage we've got the choice of dictato-potato phone prime, or misc flavour of peasant. If you want walled garden, go use apple. The option is there. We don't need to bring…

i mean, this program is specifically for google verifed devices...

Google Certified Devices is any device that has GMS (Google Mobile Services) installed - ergo almost all of them. It's worth noting that a _lot_ of apps stop functioning when GMS is missing because Google has been purposefully been putting as much functionality in them instead of putting them in AOSP. So you end up in a situation where, to make an Android phone compatible with most apps, you need GMS. Which in turn means you need your phone to be Google Certified, and hence must implement this specification.

Re: Android developer verification: Early access starts

#614
post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to trust somebody. Who is F-Droid? Why should I trust them? How do I know they aren’t infiltrated by TLAs? (Three Letter Agencies), or outright bad-actors. Didn’t F-Droid have 20 or so apps that contained known vulnerabilities back in 2022? Who are all these people? Why should I trust them, and why do most of them have no link to a bio or repository, or otherwise no way to verify they are who they say they a…

I trust them, at least a lot more than I do Google, which is a known bad actor, and collaborator with "TLAs". F-Droid has been around for a very long time, if you didn't know. They've built and earned the trust people have in them today. > Didn’t F-Droid have 20 or so apps that contained known vulnerabilities back in 2022? Idk what specific incident you're referring to, but since they build apks themselves in an auto…

This incident

https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-/merge_requests/11496

Re: Android developer verification: Early access starts

#615
post #7

From the very first announcement of this, Google has hinted that they were doing this under pressure from the governments in a few countries. (I don't remember the URL of the first announcement, but https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-... is from 2025-August-25 and mentions “These requirements go into effect in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand”.) The “Why verification is important” s…

Considering phone scammers often convince their victims to: - install remote desktop software - run commands in the windows terminal - withdraw cash from the bank - lie to the bank teller about their purpose - insert their cash into a bitcoin ATM at a gas station - ignore warnings about scams which appear on the screen of the ATM - insert the scammers bitcoin address into the machine It isn't a stretch to imagine the…

It's waaaay more complicated to download ADB and side load a random APK.

This is either a move towards tighter control of the platform or a government request. And somewhat ironic, given that iOS is being pressured to be a bit more open.

Re: Android developer verification: Early access starts

#616
post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In most cases, F-Droid couldn't know either. A developer transferring their accounts and private keys to someone else is not easily detected. 1. The Android OS does not allow installing app updates if the new APK uses a different signing key than the existing one. It will outright refuse, and this works locally on device. There's no need to ask some third party server to verify anything. It's a fundamental part of…

You have to trust somebody. Who is F-Droid? Why should I trust them? How do I know they aren’t infiltrated by TLAs? (Three Letter Agencies), or outright bad-actors. Didn’t F-Droid have 20 or so apps that contained known vulnerabilities back in 2022? Who are all these people? Why should I trust them, and why do most of them have no link to a bio or repository, or otherwise no way to verify they are who they say they a…

> Who is F-Droid? Why should I trust them?

For the same reason you trust many things. They have a long track record of doing the right thing. As gaining reputation for doing the wrong thing would more or less destroy them, it's a fair incentive to continue doing the right thing. It's a much better incentive that many random developers of small apps in Google's play store have.

However, that's not the only reason to trust them. They also follow a set of processes, starting with a long list of criteria saying what app's they will accept https://f-droid.org/docs/Inclusion_Policy/ That doesn't mean malware won't slip past them on occasion, but if you look at the amount of malware that slips past F-Droid and projects with similar policies like Debian and compare them to other app stores like Google's, Apple and Microsoft there is no comparison. Some malware slips past Debian's defences once every few years. I would not be surprised if new malware isn't uploaded to Google app store every few minutes. The others aren't much better.

The net outcome of all that is the open source distribution platforms like F-Droid and Debian, that have procedures in place like tight acceptance policies and reproducible builds are by a huge margin the most reliable and trustworthy on the planet right now. That isn't saying they are perfect, but rather if Google's goal is to keep their users safe they should be doing everything in their power to protect and promote F-Droid.

> How do I know they aren’t infiltrated by TLAs? (Three Letter Agencies), or outright bad-actors.

You don't know for sure, but F-Droid policies make it possible to detect if the TLA did something nefarious. The combination of reproducible builds, open source and open source's tendency to use source code management systems that provide to audit trail showing who changed every line shine a lot of sunlight into the area. Sunlight those TLA's your so paranoid about hate.

This is the one thing that puzzles me about F-Droid opposition in particular. Google is taking a small step here towards increasing accountability of app developers. But a single person signing an app is in reality a very small step. There are likely tens if not hundreds of libraries underpinning it, developed by thousands of people. That single developer can't monitor them all, and consequently libraries with malware inserted from upstream repositories like NPM or PyPi regularly slips through. Transparency the open source movement mostly enforces is far greater. You can't even modify the amount of whitespace in a line without it being picked up by some version control system that records who did it, why they did it, and when. So F-Droid is complaining about a small increase in enforced transparency from Google, when they demand far, far more from their contributors.

I get that Google's change probably creates some paper-cuts for F-Droid, but I doubt it's something that can't be worked around if both sides collaborate. This blog post sounds like Google is moving in that direction. Hear, hear!

Re: Android developer verification: Early access starts

#617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to trust somebody. Who is F-Droid? Why should I trust them? How do I know they aren’t infiltrated by TLAs? (Three Letter Agencies), or outright bad-actors. Didn’t F-Droid have 20 or so apps that contained known vulnerabilities back in 2022? Who are all these people? Why should I trust them, and why do most of them have no link to a bio or repository, or otherwise no way to verify they are who they say they a…

> Who is F-Droid? Why should I trust them? For the same reason you trust many things. They have a long track record of doing the right thing. As gaining reputation for doing the wrong thing would more or less destroy them, it's a fair incentive to continue doing the right thing. It's a much better incentive that many random developers of small apps in Google's play store have. However, that's not the only reason to t…

> They also follow a set of processes, starting with a long list of criteria saying what app's they will accept

How is this an argument in favour of being able to run whatever software you want on hardware you own?

Re: Android developer verification: Early access starts

#618
post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give some examples? I've heard that's a thing, but I'm not familiar with any apps that actually pull it off (reproducible builds are difficult to achieve)

Reproducible builds may be hard to achieve, but that doesn't mean you don't have a list of such builds long enough to crash your browser: https://verification.f-droid.org/verified.html

Weird to have a page like that if a human can't use it. Needs some pagination, f-droid!

It's like we're supposed to save the page and grep it or something. Doesn't work in my Firefox.

Re: Android developer verification: Early access starts

#619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's all about control. Control the platform. Control the access to the platform, and the world is your oyster. And the political and legislation system are their friends. It is the establishment. The only way to fight is to indoctrinate the next generation, at home, and in school, to use FOSS. People tend to stick to whatever they used in childhood. We the software engineers should volunteer in giving speeches…

Really its probably the dumbass judge that told Google "The apple app store isn't anti-competitive because they don't allow any competitors on their platform" when google asked why the play store was ruled a monopoly and the app store wasn't. I cannot think of a more detached and idiotic ruling than that.

But the ruling is correct. You can't have it both ways, if you invite competition you're not allowed to be anti-competitive. You can be Nintendo, offer a single store, only allow first party hardware, and exercise total control over your product. Then your anticompetitive behavior can only be evaluated externally. But if you open yourself up to internal competition with other phone vendors, other stores, and then you flex your other business units (gapps) to force those other vendors to favor you then you're in big trouble.

Re: Android developer verification: Early access starts

#620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first link shows a graph that indicates more than 50% of Americans believe there is at least some competition, or a lot of competition; and that less than 1/3rd believe there is not enough, or no, competition in every sector of the economy that would be relevant to this discussion. And that most Americans believe that bigger companies tend to have lower prices than smaller ones. It’s not particularly clear then…

You're choosing the questions that have framing issues: > more than 50% of Americans believe there is at least some competition, or a lot of competition in every sector of the economy that would be relevant to this discussion. We're talking about Google and Apple but the relevant category would be "technology companies". Do phone platforms or mobile app distribution stores have "a lot of competition"? It's hard to se…

On the other hand, maybe if the railways weren’t broken up the USA might have been crisscrossed with high speed rail by now.

Then we could argue how high speed rail would have been cheaper if the railways had been broken up.

PS I appreciate your thoughtful response, and your contributions to HN more generally.

Post reply on HN