Phew! I was just about to get the new Pixel too, not going to now. I wonder if Samsung will be effected.
I think that is a yes, it will affect Samsung
81–90 of 1001 posts
Phew! I was just about to get the new Pixel too, not going to now. I wonder if Samsung will be effected.
I think that is a yes, it will affect Samsung
These days I don't really want a smartphone at all, but begrudgingly use one for things like mobile banking, receiving SMS tokens, etc. If someone made a screenless powerbank-shaped Android device, I might be interested. The device would double as a 5g wifi modem, and to access the UI you'd remote in over VNC from a laptop, or unrestricted mobile device like a PinePhone.
What does this mean for projects like Grapheneos, or fdroid?
If they keep up this "boil the frog slowly" crap though, I may be migrating off of Android and over to a strictly Linux-based phone, like a PinePhone, Librem, etc.
Fuck the scumbags at the top of big tech making decisions like these.
Official announcement: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-... More info: https://developer.android.com/developer-verification https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... Personally...we all know the Play Store is chock full of malicious garbage, so the verification requirements there don't do jack to protect users. The way I see it, this is nothing but a power grab, a way…
I don't think we can know for sure before the change is actually in place. Going through Play Protect would certainly be the easiest way of implementing this - it would be a simple change from "Play Protect rejects known malware" to "Play Protect rejects any app that isn't properly notarized". This would narrowly address the issue where the existing malware checks are made ineffective by pushing some new variant of the malicious app with a different package id.
It's a big change for the ecosystem nonetheless because it will require all existing developers to register for verification if they want to publish a "legit" app that won't be rejected by any common Android device - and the phrasing of the official announcements accurately reflects this. But this says nothing much as of yet about whether power users will be allowed to proactively disable these checks (just like they can turn off Play Protect today, even though very few people do so in practice).
Holy shit, going to the official page[1], there's something that is somehow even worse than the loss of freedom: "You'll need to prove you own your apps by providing your app package name and app signing keys." That is capital-I Insane. [1] https://developer.android.com/developer-verification
While I like to jump on the Google bash train as much as anyone, this is to comply with EU laws. Apple implemented a similar change for the EU App Store earlier this year to comply with the Digital Services Act (DSA), a regulation that now requires app developers to provide their “trader status” to submit new apps or app updates for distribution.
While I like to jump on the Google bash train as much as anyone, this is to comply with EU laws. Apple implemented a similar change for the EU App Store earlier this year to comply with the Digital Services Act (DSA), a regulation that now requires app developers to provide their “trader status” to submit new apps or app updates for distribution.
It will be interesting to see how they handle packages from the various f-droid repos. F-droid builds and signs all their apps themselves, so will all of f-droid be covered by a single signing key and developer account? Or will the fact that they take apps from lots of folks bar them from an account?