Answering questions about Android developer verification

Post by wilsonnb3 » Sun, Oct 05, 2025, 1:18 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #73

prameshbajra wrote: post #27

> We want to make sure that if you download an app, it’s truly from the developer it claims to be published from, regardless of where you get the app. Verified developers will have the same freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through sideloading or through any app store they prefer. This makes no sense at all.

Not to mention this doesn't even solve the problem. What's preventing someone from registering and then releasing an app with a similar name to a famous app? Sure, the registration means there's someone you can sue, but it doesn't allow the user to identify the publisher. A "verified publisher" field when you're installing an app would solve both issues (similar to windows[1]), and not require every app developer to…

Post by wilsonnb3 » Sun, Oct 05, 2025, 1:25 AM UTC

b112 wrote: post #81

Kwpolska wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung's store contains virtually no original third-party software, anything that's worth installing and is not from Samsung is available on the Play Store.

You know, you have to wonder what they did wrong. Sure the Play store was dominant when they started their own store. Yet companies tend to have excellent success if they control the OS on the device. They could have offered no commission for 5 years, or some such. Does anyone reading this know if the contract they had to sign with Google, to have the Play store pre-installed, reduced their ability to compete? I mean…

Post by maest » Sun, Oct 05, 2025, 2:14 AM UTC

runting wrote: post #28

This isn't so bad. Unlike other mobile OSes (namely iOS and HarmonyOS), you will still be able to install whatever you like on Android over a USB debugging connection (adb) without any developer verification. It doesn't take much effort to enable Developer Options, plug into a laptop and run "adb install whatever.apk". It's kind of like the floppy disk era again, having to physically insert things into one's computer…

Post by Spivak » Sun, Oct 05, 2025, 2:25 AM UTC

lukevp wrote: post #23

So this is saying you have to have an Android developer account and sign the app with your identity… so a one-time $25 cost and that’s it? You can still distribute and sideload apps as long as you sign them. Microsoft does this for Windows apps if you don’t want scary warnings popping up everywhere. Apple doesn’t even let you sideload at all for iOS and for macOS they do the forced trash malware thing unless you run…

Post by fluidcruft » Sun, Oct 05, 2025, 2:59 AM UTC

MrDresden wrote: post #53

drnick1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't Graphene and Lineage exactly that? I have been running Graphene on a Pixel for a while now and I don't think Linux phones are a viable alternative. The vast majority of Android apps just work on Graphene, and there are millions of them. The UI experience is polished, everything just works with the exception of apps that require Google Play Integrity. And of course these projects aren't affected by Google's res…

Look I love that GrapheneOS exists, and I have used it in the past (as have I with Lineage). But GrapheneOS lives by the mercy of Google. Pixel devices being reference devices makes it so that it's unlikely that Google will close them down completely. However, as can be seen with this verification move, Google is willing to go very far to accomplish its aims. They already delayed delivery of Android 16 images, causin…