Google confirms Android dev verification will have free and paid tiers, no public list of devs

Google promises verification will make Android safer, but at what cost?

See full article...

 

[Kanator]

I imagine since Google "lost" the Chrome monopoly case, received no penalties, and effectively won, we'll be seeing a lot more abuse of their various monopoly positions in the immediate future. This is just a start.

 

[Outlaw Shark]

As part of this so-called improved verification, Google should also be held liable for any damages caused by malicious applications.

 

[MrMalthus]

The current US administration has had harsh words for apps like ICEBlock, which it successfully had pulled from the Apple App Store.

This feels a bit passively worded. The Trump administration successfully had Apple voluntarily pull it from the Apple App Store.

Feels like this comparison should have been discussed a bit more, because Google putting themselves in this place as gatekeeper is exactly the kind of controlling bottleneck that allowed Apple to decide that its users aren't allowed to run an app like ICEBlock.

 

[MilesArcher]

I'm trying to figure out what this means to me. I wrote an app for myself and so far, only for myself. It uses BLE to open my garage door. No internet. No frills. I wrote it on my laptop and debugged and loaded it via USB. Will this still be possible in this future world with registered apps?

 

[bigchungus]

The message is loud and clear: you will own nothing and you will like it. You thought you were purchasing a physical device that you own and can do whatever you want to, but actually, if you read the ToS and EULA in microfont, buried deep within legalese nonsense and mountains of willfully misdirecting paragraphs, you will have found out that by simply turning on your device you have agreed to only a license to use your device.

 

[MrTom]

I'm trying to figure out what this means to me. I wrote an app for myself and so far, only for myself. It uses BLE to open my garage door. No internet. No frills. I wrote it on my laptop and debugged and loaded it via USB. Will this still be possible in this future world with registered apps?

I'd like to know too. I'm currently learning Android Studio for work. I'd like to make an app to track bins and take pictures of packaged boxes, have it on numerous tablets for employees to use. I've experimented a bit with loading some test programs on my phone to see how it works. How is this going to affect me and my work. I'll only be able to install it via USB like what, 20 times, 50 times, 3 devices?

Ack.. Makes me want to abort this idea right now and just stick with creating Windows apps or web only apps.

 

[zoward]

So, basically they're trying to be like Apple now, except with less privacy. Looks like when my Pixel 7a dies I'll be getting an iPhone.

 

[MrMalthus]

I'm trying to figure out what this means to me. I wrote an app for myself and so far, only for myself. It uses BLE to open my garage door. No internet. No frills. I wrote it on my laptop and debugged and loaded it via USB. Will this still be possible in this future world with registered apps?

This appears to be addressed in the linked post. If you load it via adb, nothing should change. That's something, I guess.

 

[Kanator]

I'm trying to figure out what this means to me. I wrote an app for myself and so far, only for myself. It uses BLE to open my garage door. No internet. No frills. I wrote it on my laptop and debugged and loaded it via USB. Will this still be possible in this future world with registered apps?

adb sideloading will continue to work, at least for now.
Any other kind of dev testing setup will not.

 

[gsgrego]

This appears to be addressed in the linked post. If you load it via adb, nothing should change. That's something, I guess.

Thanks.

This is also something I was curious about.

 

[Steve austin]

This feels a bit passively worded. The Trump administration successfully had Apple voluntarily pull it from the Apple App Store.

Feels like this comparison should have been discussed a bit more, because Google putting themselves in this place as gatekeeper is exactly the kind of controlling bottleneck that allowed Apple to decide that its users aren't allowed to run an app like ICEBlock.

That’s giving Apple a lot more agency than I think they had on this. The administration told them they wanted it gone, and even if Apple pushed back in court, it’s unlikely they’d win, given the administration’s control over the courts, especially SCOTUS. And the administration would have no compunctions about punishing Apple for having the temerity to even try to push back. Unfortunately, we’re currently living in a pretty fascistic country.

 

[alanbork]

I'm trying to figure out what this means to me. I wrote an app for myself and so far, only for myself. It uses BLE to open my garage door. No internet. No frills. I wrote it on my laptop and debugged and loaded it via USB. Will this still be possible in this future world with registered apps?

adb sideloading will continue to work, at least for now.
Any other kind of dev testing setup will not.

IDK, you've described how most (all?) devs personally test their apps: with ADB sideloading. So this sounds fine, as long as it continues to work. Also, while I can acknowledge that anything can be made worse/awful give enough motivation, (or carelessness in google's case) it's hard to imagine how development could work at all unless ADB sideloading was allowed.

More generally, though, I don't see how this new policy could benefit anybody currently, and barely see how it could be a net win for google in the long term. What a google-snafu (googlefu?). And to think how much trust we had for google to do the right thing 20 years ago, and even to some extent 10. They have really lost their way.

 

[mrkite77]

So, basically they're trying to be like Apple now, except with less privacy. Looks like when my Pixel 7a dies I'll be getting an iPhone.

Why not just go with GrapheneOS?

 

[clackerd]

This is madness. Every single day I wish godspeed upon linux phone devs. Time to start throwing some money at Pine/postmarket/sailfish etc because the two mobile actors are twats

 

[citizencoyote]

That’s giving Apple a lot more agency than I think they had on this. The administration told them they wanted it gone, and even if Apple pushed back in court, it’s unlikely they’d win, given the administration’s control over the courts, especially SCOTUS. And the administration would have no compunctions about punishing Apple for having the temerity to even try to push back. Unfortunately, we’re currently living in a pretty fascistic country.

That's giving Apple a huge pass on not even trying to fight it. They rolled over, and opened the door for rolling over whenever the Trump Administration comes knocking demanding they remove an app they don't like "for reasons."

Even if the odds were against them, Apple should have fought, if only to show they would. Now that they've meekly handed over their lunch money, expect the bully to come by again and again.

 

[jedevnull]

Stallman was right.

 

[habilain]

That’s giving Apple a lot more agency than I think they had on this. The administration told them they wanted it gone, and even if Apple pushed back in court, it’s unlikely they’d win, given the administration’s control over the courts, especially SCOTUS. And the administration would have no compunctions about punishing Apple for having the temerity to even try to push back. Unfortunately, we’re currently living in a pretty fascistic country.

Apple has no problem pushing back against other governments - for example, they're engaged in a fairly well publicised fight against the UK governments demand for access to encrypted data. Whether or not you agree with the UK law (and I personally do not - it's a bloody stupid law), that is an example of Apple challenging the law of the land in another country.

In this case, Apple really has just rolled over and done what the USA government said, no fightback whatsoever. That's worrying, if only because we don't know how far Apple will go to appease the whims of the current US administration. This raises a lot of questions - the obvious one being, if the USA asked nicely, would Apple give them a backdoor into encrypted iPhones?

Obviously that's a pretty inflammatory thing to say, but one does have to wonder how far companies will go to keep in Trump's good books.

 

[afidel]

I'm trying to figure out what this means to me. I wrote an app for myself and so far, only for myself. It uses BLE to open my garage door. No internet. No frills. I wrote it on my laptop and debugged and loaded it via USB. Will this still be possible in this future world with registered apps?

Yes, Google has confirmed that you will still be able to sideload via ADB unsigned apps, it just won't be supported in the GUI.

 

[J.R.G]

Yes, Google has confirmed that you will still be able to sideload via ADB unsigned apps, it just won't be supported in the GUI.

Well, that's what Google says today ...

 

[Missing Minute]

You know what MIGHT move me SLIGHTLY towards Googles perspective? If google released detailed statistics about malicious apps both verified and unverified.

You know what makes me confident google is full of shit? The fact that they have not done the above.

 

[bkedersha]

This is bullshit. Android was built on anything goes, and now Google is destroying this wonderful idea. Also, I wouldn't trust Google with any information.

 

[SteveBigandTall]

That’s giving Apple a lot more agency than I think they had on this. The administration told them they wanted it gone, and even if Apple pushed back in court, it’s unlikely they’d win, given the administration’s control over the courts, especially SCOTUS. And the administration would have no compunctions about punishing Apple for having the temerity to even try to push back. Unfortunately, we’re currently living in a pretty fascistic country.

you don't submit pre-emptively, because once you do, then 'why do we have courts' becomes a thing and suddenly they get no funding and are shut down.

 

[zikaeroh]

This will also totally break things like App Cloner, which operate wholly on the local device. Can't use a work profile to "clone" apps because it's used for... work! And my work device policies kick me off if I enable adb debugging!

Thanks Google. Just like they abused their control over Chrome to push MV3, they get to do the same thing for Android.

 

[big-ted]

Google currently can't keep malware out of their own store, how does checking all sideloaded apps improve the situation

 

[Boskone]

Why not just go with GrapheneOS?

GrapheneOS currently depends on Google releasing code, which I wouldn't count on. The Pixel 10 still can't.

And Google to continue allowing the bootloaders to unlock.

 

[rcduke]

What is the threshold for classifying something as malware? Obviously, people from F-Droid will have to sign up for this program and pay $25, which is no big deal. But what if Google decides that one of F-Droid apps is "malware" when, in reality, it's just an app that goes against Google Play's questionable policy? For example, what if it's something like NewPipe? For example, Apple has been keen on shutting down VPN-related apps in countries with repressive governments, such as Russia, China, Iran, etc. Then Apple/Google blocks their entire account.
During the interview, they stated twice that the ADB installation option would remain intact and would not require additional signatures. So, they are not wrong about sideloading being still freely available, they are just making it even harder to do.

Put simply, Google wants to be able to quickly block malicious actors from distributing malware to its 4 billion or so users.

I understand the modding community hates every letter of this proposal but sadly it's the only effective way to prevent malware from spreading. It is impossible to protect users from themselves, and it is not possible to delegate to them the understanding of permissions and the consequences of using malicious apps.

So, is the fuss about a one-off payment of $25 and identity verification, or what?

• Because you can sign up for free if you distribute only to a close circle of people and
• You can still adb install even under this proposal.

Before you vote me down, please tell me where and how I'm wrong exactly. Not emotionally, factually. I'm not defending Google. I'm not defending monopolies. Having watched the entire discussion and read the proposal, I think it makes quite a lot of sense.

Again, the only concern is what Google might deem to be "malicious". If they don't overstep the mark, I don't foresee any major issues.

It boils down to the ease of providing software that is not beholden to the rules of a tech carrier and the government. Android was built on the foundation that you could do what you wanted with the OS. Theming, customization, and installation of whatever apps you wanted. Google has the right to patrol what's officially in the Play Store but they need to keep their hands off side apps.

Installing apps over ADB requires a computer, enabling USB debugging, and transferring. That requires someone to research how to enable the developer options, connect the phone, install the ADB drivers from Google's website, learn the command to transfer the files, then find it on their phone and install it. That effectively turns 98% of the Android user base off from installing third party apps (Ancedote: Everyone I know that doesn't have a Pixel is not techy enough to do that).

Combine that with a very overzealous US government that is ignoring current laws and precedent when it doesn't serve them, and it allows a formerly open ecosystem to be locked down under the guise of security.

This is 50% anti-adblock and 50% capitulating to the government, and it's 100% bad for consumers.

 

[ReaderBot]

So, to reiterate, Google will now:

1. Be charging every developer in the world money to release apps on Android, even if they don't release on the Play Store and use zero Google resources to do so,
2. And reserving for themselves the right to deny any app the ability to run on Android devices, for any reason whatsoever that they choose.

And the justification for these new massive rights and revenues that they've granted themselves is nothing at all.

I'm a little sad that I haven't heard anything from the EU about this. I was hoping they would come down on team Don't, Be Evil like a metric ton of bricks.

 

[shnarzan]

That's giving Apple a huge pass on not even trying to fight it. They rolled over, and opened the door for rolling over whenever the Trump Administration comes knocking demanding they remove an app they don't like "for reasons."

Even if the odds were against them, Apple should have fought, if only to show they would. Now that they've meekly handed over their lunch money, expect the bully to come by again and again.

"Tim Apple" is no Steve Jobs, and even if he was, big shareholders' interests would steamroll public interest considerations in the boardroom.

 

[Frosty Grin]

This is 50% anti-adblock and 50% capitulating to the government, and it's 100% bad for consumers.

It does add up.

 

[sd70mac]

I'm trying to figure out what this means to me. I wrote an app for myself and so far, only for myself. It uses BLE to open my garage door. No internet. No frills. I wrote it on my laptop and debugged and loaded it via USB. Will this still be possible in this future world with registered apps?

It sounds like you will need to do the lesser verification with an e-mail address at some point on newer releases of Android.

 

[sd70mac]

So, to reiterate, Google will now:

1. Be charging every developer in the world money to release apps on Android, even if they don't release on the Play Store and use zero Google resources to do so,
2. And reserving for themselves the right to deny any app the ability to run on Android devices, for any reason whatsoever that they choose.

And the justification for these new massive rights and revenues that they've granted themselves is nothing at all.

I'm a little sad that I haven't heard anything from the EU about this. I was hoping they would come down on team Don't, Be Evil like a metric ton of bricks.

I know the EU Competition team can move very slowly sometimes, however I will make sure to let them know about this.

 

[no_free_lunches_for_ai]

That’s giving Apple a lot more agency than I think they had on this. The administration told them they wanted it gone, and even if Apple pushed back in court, it’s unlikely they’d win, given the administration’s control over the courts, especially SCOTUS. And the administration would have no compunctions about punishing Apple for having the temerity to even try to push back. Unfortunately, we’re currently living in a pretty fascistic country.

Doing the right thing sometimes means going through with something even if you (maybe) know the end result.

 

[MdNvS]

So, what happens if a phone comes with the brand's own app store pre-installed? Most people I know (I'm in the EU) have/had a Xiaomi (Poco, Redmi), Honor or Samsung, and all of them come with their own app stores along with Google Play.

A 200-300 euro phone nowadays does all that some people (me included) need and not everyone can afford or justify getting a Pixel to install Graphene, for example. But I do need a few sideloaded apps (like Blokada), or ones from F-Droid (Privacy Browser serves me great for loading the news websites quickly, for example).

 

[julesverne]

So, to reiterate, Google will now:

1. Be charging every developer in the world money to release apps on Android, even if they don't release on the Play Store and use zero Google resources to do so,
2. And reserving for themselves the right to deny any app the ability to run on Android devices, for any reason whatsoever that they choose.

And the justification for these new massive rights and revenues that they've granted themselves is nothing at all.

I'm a little sad that I haven't heard anything from the EU about this. I was hoping they would come down on team Don't, Be Evil like a metric ton of bricks.

As a resident of the EU, I share the concern about the lack of any response from the Commission. This issue affects hundreds of millions of devices used by EU citizens every day. It also seems like a clear violation of Article 6 of the DMA. And yet... crickets. Ultimately there may be push back but the lack of any public statement thus far afaik is confusing.

 

[gsgrego]

So, what happens if a phone comes with the brand's own app store pre-installed? Most people I know (I'm in the EU) have/had a Xiaomi (Poco, Redmi), Honor or Samsung, and all of them come with their own app stores along with Google Play.

A 200-300 euro phone nowadays does all that some people (me included) need and not everyone can afford or justify getting a Pixel to install Graphene, for example. But I do need a few sideloaded apps (like Blokada), or ones from F-Droid (Privacy Browser serves me great for loading the news websites quickly, for example).

As far as I can tell the goal here is to regain control of all those other app stores.

 

[MdNvS]

As far as I can tell the goal here is to regain control of all those other app stores.

Understood. But the vast majority of phones sold here are Chinese brands and Samsung, and only a few small or less popular ones like Motorola, Sony and Pixel, use (almost) clean Android. This could be an interesting development.