# Google wants to make sideloading Android apps safer by verifying developers’ identities **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/google-wants-to-make-sideloading-android-apps-safer-by-verifying-developers-identities/30473 **Category:** News **Created:** 2025-08-25T18:31:51Z **Posts:** 144 ## Post 1 by @yes — 2025-08-25T18:31:52Z > **[Google wants to make sideloading Android apps safer by verifying developers’...](https://www.androidauthority.com/android-developer-verification-requirements-3590911/)** > > Google wants to make sideloading safer on Android by verifiying the identities of developers who distribute apps outside the Play Store. > Google will soon verify the identities of developers who distribute Android apps outside the Play Store. > Developers must submit their information to a new Android Developer Console, increasing their accountability for their apps. > Rolling out in phases from September 2026, these new verification requirements are aimed at protecting users from malware by making it harder for malicious developers to remain anonymous. Another attempt by Google to further increase their monopoly on Android. > **[A new layer of security for certified Android devices](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-android-security.html?m=1)** > > Starting in 2026 and in select countries first, Android apps must be registered to a verified developer in order to be installed. --- ## Post 2 by @anonymous378 — 2025-08-25T18:45:23Z This feels especially disingenuous considering the issues they have with [apps inside their app store](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/spyvpn-the-google-featured-vpn-that-secretly-captures-your-screen-koi/30258) --- ## Post 3 by @Pragmatic — 2025-08-25T18:45:36Z We can’t wait for Accrescent to be developed so that we’re no longer dependent on this Play Store crap. We hope that more and more developers will publish their applications on it and that this will have a domino effect, with even more developers publishing their applications on Accrescent. --- ## Post 4 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-25T19:16:17Z There should be a new rule on here. News like this must be accompanied by an emoji or two indicating monumental and egregious stupidity of the news item accurately implying the massive undermining of internet freedoms, privacy, and security. I’m only half kidding but @jonah can we? Gotta be something to visually say how bad this type of news is to what I mentioned and what we believe in to those who may not grasp the significance of some news items. --- ## Post 5 by @Tux — 2025-08-25T19:19:23Z Of course this won’t affect any of the FOSS Android builds, since this sort of anti-feature can be easily stripped out. --- ## Post 6 by @certainty — 2025-08-25T22:54:13Z I think this will be an extension to [Android Advanced Protection Mode](https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-advanced-protection-mode-screenshots-3550119/) _([no separate toggle for each settings](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/heres-how-android-16-s-advanced-protection-mode-secures-your-phone-and-data-apk-teardown/27269/26))_. Maybe now their target is frontend apps for youtube and other services since they already have upper hand against mod apps and games. If Google placed these kind of actions on third party app stores it is acceptable to a certain level. Also, third party app stores do their best to prevent malware apps listed in their store. There are cases where the apps get delisted from play store too after its found to be malware. --- ## Post 7 by @yes — 2025-08-26T00:42:27Z > [@Tux](#): > > Of course this won’t affect any of the FOSS Android builds, since this sort of anti-feature can be easily stripped out. It doesn’t change the fact that they’re enforcing this at the OS level and making sideloading on Android almost impossible. I wouldn’t verify my ID just to publish apps; this would put most FOSS projects at risk. > [@certainty](#): > > I think this will be an extension to [Android Advanced Protection Mode](https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-advanced-protection-mode-screenshots-3550119/) _([no separate toggle for each settings](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/heres-how-android-16-s-advanced-protection-mode-secures-your-phone-and-data-apk-teardown/27269/26))_. I don’t think so. They’re essentially telling developers, ‘Verify or no apps for you’. > “To make this process as streamlined as possible, we are building a new Android Developer Console just for developers who only distribute outside of Google Play, so they can easily complete their verification” > [Android Developers Blog: A new layer of security for certified Android devices](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-android-security.html#:~:text=To%20make%20this%20process%20as%20streamlined%20as%20possible%2C%20we%20are%20building%20a%20new%20Android%20Developer%20Console%20just%20for%20developers%20who%20only%20distribute%20outside%20of%20Google%20Play%2C%20so%20they%20can%20easily%20complete%20their%20verification) They wouldn’t bother this much if it was something that could be switched off. --- ## Post 8 by @crossroads — 2025-08-26T03:32:23Z At the same time > **[Malicious Android apps with 19M installs removed from Google Play](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malicious-android-apps-with-19m-installs-removed-from-google-play/)** > > Seventy-seven malicious Android apps containing different types of malware were found on Google Play after being downloaded more than 19 million times. --- ## Post 9 by @jonah — 2025-08-26T04:25:50Z The next step will be Google using their newfound APK signing powers to modify apps obtained from the Play Store and make them impossible to run on operating systems that aren’t Play Certified, to kill off Aurora Store and third-party ROMs. AOSP has no future, sad. --- ## Post 10 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-26T05:41:24Z Perhaps it’s time a new OS is developed for smartphones without the problems upstream AOSP is going to have soon. Or it’s time OEMs snd developers start taking Linux seriously for smartphones and built that up to what should have already been a proper alternative just like how desktop Linux is. --- ## Post 11 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-08-26T08:44:44Z This is unrelated. Please read the article first. It will affect all Android on OEM devices (except Chinese one but they already sometimes block sideloading), and you can’t uninstall Play Protection on those --- ## Post 12 by @sha123 — 2025-08-26T11:28:48Z > [@jonah](#): > > AOSP has no future, sad. Sounds like your crystal ball needs recalibration. Mine shows a different future. --- ## Post 13 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-26T11:35:45Z Not every comment is to be taken seriously or literally… --- ## Post 14 by @jonah — 2025-08-26T13:56:15Z > [@anon57862721](#): > > Or it’s time OEMs snd developers start taking Linux seriously for smartphones and built that up to what should have already been a proper alternative just like how desktop Linux is. It seems most likely that Linux phones will be the only good option in the future, but we are _very_ far off from that being reality, seeing as it’s still not even so great on desktop yet lol --- ## Post 15 by @anon57862721 — 2025-08-26T14:17:47Z Well, we know why. Two problems: fragmentation of the OS (nature of the situation, not anyone’s fault) and a ‘decentralized’ approach to software development (nature of the FOSS world, again not anyone’s fault) As far as I can tell, Tux and System76 are the only two names who are the ‘solutions’ to this. They make their software and hardware. I know they are reliant on upstream Debian but if that were not the case, then one company could take charge and make a proper full fledged stable OS like how we have macOS. This includes but is not limited to a feature and functionality rich OS (so reliance on extensions, add ons, other small apps needed to make desktop Linux ‘feel’ full, etc are not needed as much) developed on/for ARM (for stability and battery life). But I don’t know too much about the esoteric world of software development in the FOSS world for me to say anything more. From what I know and understand, that would or should fix it coupled with some amount of money. --- ## Post 16 by @anon63378630 — 2025-08-26T14:30:46Z > [@sha123](#): > > Mine shows a different future. Mind elaborating? afaict Google isn’t even publishing monthly AOSP branches/source code anymore. No July or August: [https://source.android.com/docs/setup/reference/build-numbers#source-code-tags-and-builds](https://source.android.com/docs/setup/reference/build-numbers#source-code-tags-and-builds) This latest move cements that they are speed running Android into the ground even despite the antitrust. edit: I wrote more about this here: [Blog - Divested Computing](https://divested.dev/pages/blog#2025-08-27-android-issues) --- ## Post 17 by @jonah — 2025-08-26T14:34:28Z > [@anon63378630](#): > > despite the anti-trust. I assume their previous “commitment” to open source was to avoid precisely this, so now that it’s a proven failed strategy they have no reason to keep up the pretense with AOSP or Chromium. --- ## Post 18 by @Milus — 2025-08-26T15:04:08Z At this point, an Iphone would be the logical choice (for me). A bit more private with alternative Stores. Funny how Apple is opening up and Google is closing up. --- ## Post 19 by @Stiffly2505 — 2025-08-26T15:19:19Z The year of the Linux phone will be right after the year of the Linux desktop. --- ## Post 20 by @anonymous83 — 2025-08-26T15:27:26Z EU needs to clamp down hard on this. Play Integrity had the excuse that developers choose to opt-in to it, this does not. Google is forcing developers to do this for their apps to be installable on “verified” devices. --- ## Post 21 by @RevealedInWords — 2025-08-26T15:42:41Z According to the GOS team on Twitter, this move by Google will not hurt them whatsoever, but could actually serve as an incentive for people to switch to GOS: [https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1960137342423114117](https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1960137342423114117) --- ## Post 22 by @KevPham — 2025-08-26T22:18:14Z > **[Malicious Android apps with 19M installs removed from Google Play](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malicious-android-apps-with-19m-installs-removed-from-google-play/)** > > Seventy-seven malicious Android apps containing different types of malware were found on Google Play after being downloaded more than 19 million times. great :melting_face: --- ## Post 23 by @DutchBaby — 2025-08-26T23:31:02Z It’s incredible. For the last 15 years, I’ve had this HUGE list of reasons why I daily drive an iPhone. That list started out with over 100 items on it back in 2010. Here we are in 2025, and all but four items have been checked off from the list, whether due to Apple suddenly deciding to allow it, or outside pressure forcing them to. FOUR items left. And Android is over here sacrificing all of their software advantages while continuing to manufacture sub-par, unreliable devices. 2010 me would never have believed me if I told him, but an iPhone may be in my future. The cons are no longer outweighing the pros of Android. --- ## Post 24 by @_TrustyRocinante — 2025-08-27T00:00:50Z Side note, but I kind of hate the term “sideloading”. It makes it sound like you’re doing something sketchy, when it’s the same as what we would do on Windows or Linux. So it’s OK for users to run .exe files on our computers, but heaven forbid we source software from another, trustworthy, app store on our phones. It blows my mind how Google and Apple treat their users like babies who can’t use their own judgement. People are saying they’ll jump to Apple over this, but they’re much more condescending towards you. I hope that GrapheneOS phone shows up on the market soon. --- ## Post 25 by @DutchBaby — 2025-08-27T00:32:57Z I know they’re much more condescending, but their devices are also significantly better at this point too, both on the laptop and mobile front. I don’t know about the other replies in here, but mine was explicitly that the cons of iPhones no longer outweigh the pros of Android. Google and friends have spent the last five years removing the pros, one by one, while Apple removes the cons, one by one. So yes, I understand the downsides of Apple, but the massive upsides at this point far outweigh Android. So I’ll be on an iPhone for my next device. --- ## Post 26 by @RevealedInWords — 2025-08-27T01:13:49Z > [@DutchBaby](#): > > It’s incredible. For the last 15 years, I’ve had this HUGE list of reasons why I daily drive an iPhone. I think you meant to say you why you daily drive an Android for the past 15 years. --- ## Post 27 by @RevealedInWords — 2025-08-27T01:28:37Z When it comes to privacy I can’t think of any advantage Apple has over GrapheneOS… in fact, it is just the opposite… You lose many privacy, respecting features with Apple and it’s walled-garden, proprietary ecosystem. Security though, that’s debatable. --- ## Post 28 by @mnalis — 2025-08-27T02:08:53Z > [@anonymous83](#): > > EU needs to clamp down hard on this. I wonder if [DMA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act) would affect this in EU? Google has been designated gatekeeper for Android platform (amongst other things) and one of the requirements is _”There are also [device neutrality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_neutrality "Device neutrality") rules regarding the rights to delete pre-installed applications (as in the case of Apple iOS or Google Android for example) and to **install apps from other sources**.__[[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act#cite_note-:02-6)_ _“_ > [@anonymous83](#): > > Google is forcing developers to do this for their apps to be installable on “verified” devices. If it still goes around DMA, I’d expect a rise in demand for “unverified” phone manufacturers. --- ## Post 29 by @_TrustyRocinante — 2025-08-27T04:33:27Z Not to mention freedom of choice, which I believe is arguably the greatest, and most forgotten, aspect of privacy. I like Apple hardware, but it is so difficult to leave their ecosystem once you’re embedded. The fact that all of your Apple products become worse, or outright unusable (homepods), without an iPhone is Apple punishing you for leaving them. I don’t care how good Apple’s cryptology is. The fact that most users can’t afford to leave them is not worth whatever fancy features they have. We should always assume any company, especially US based, will slowly erode whatever privacy standards they currently hold, so always have an exit strategy available. --- ## Post 30 by @Breeze7846 — 2025-08-27T05:12:10Z So…. Is that it? Are those of us on Android or a spin thereof (aka Graphene) now boned? --- ## Post 31 by @Tux — 2025-08-27T05:57:36Z No, if you run a FOSS build like Graphene none of this applies to you. --- ## Post 32 by @su — 2025-08-27T06:16:34Z GOS is safe. > **[GrapheneOS (@GrapheneOS)](https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1960137342423114117)** > > No, and if they did we'd simply avoid using it. We don't mind if they publish the code for it and would in fact prefer it if they open sourced as much as possible of the currently proprietary Google apps/services. We'd be very happy if Play services... Unfortunately, they have their own share of problems with the changes to the AOSP’s open [source commit schedules](https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/21315-explanation-of-recent-changes-to-aosp-and-the-lack-of-major-impact-on-grapheneos). --- ## Post 33 by @U53R — 2025-08-27T14:05:47Z I just deleted (via canta and shizuku) system apps that used for OTA system updates. Better not to get updated (yes, I understand that it can possibly harm security fixes) than get unattended update making me locked in walled garden full of proprietary shit. --- ## Post 34 by @tauiode — 2025-08-29T09:35:14Z One thing that really gets my goat is that FOSS OS users keep whinging about Screwgle. Let’s face it, it’s hardly a big surprise that the big G is locking down on third party apps and repositories with a longer term objective to completely lock their users in to the whole fake experience. If you want to set yourself free just run a FOSS OS with truly, no strings attached, open source app’s. If the bank you bank with doesn’t provide an open source app’, move to one that does. Support open source developers and companies that use them to provide app’s for their customers by buying off them. Support all the volunteers that give up their time freely to provide you with some of the most amazing alternative OS’s out there. Took me 5 years to dig myself a path out of the walled garden and I’ll be damned rather than going back in. That was back in the day when there were hardly any FOSS app’s, now there are plenty to choose from. So now no reasons not to, only excuses IMHO. --- ## Post 35 by @JerryButler — 2025-08-29T22:48:37Z Which banks have open source apps? --- ## Post 36 by @TheDoc — 2025-08-29T23:09:48Z > [@RevealedInWords](#): > > When it comes to privacy I can’t think of any advantage Apple has over GrapheneOS It’s not the fault of GrapheneOS but iPhones do have a few privacy or security advantages - Next most secure smartphone for those who can’t stand GrapheneOS’ usability issues or can’t risk [being profiled](https://www.androidauthority.com/why-i-use-grapheneos-on-pixel-3575477) - iMessage E2EE (extremely common in some countries & not yet compatible with RCS E2EE) - [Apple Pay](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/to-apple-pay-or-not-apple-pay/15312) (most secure option for those who can’t use something like [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com)) (Not saying this makes iPhones better, just that GrapheneOS doesn’t beat it in _every_ scenario.) --- ## Post 37 by @Tux — 2025-08-30T00:25:49Z You don’t need banking “apps” when you can use a Web browser to make payments or read statements. The apps may sometimes be convenient, but no convenience is worth more than my freedom. --- ## Post 39 by @TheDoc — 2025-08-30T02:12:12Z > [@Tux](#): > > Without access to the source code all the Apple privacy features are merely backed by a “trust me, bro.” This is a common [misconception](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/common-misconceptions/#open-source-software-is-always-secure-or-proprietary-software-is-more-secure). I’m pretty sure every benefit I mentioned is easily provable. Certainly the first and last, and the second can most likely be verified through other means. iOS security research is a thing and it can be done without access to source code. There are definitely major issues with being proprietary but it’s not as bad as “trust me bro” security. > [@Tux](#): > > And even if these are genuine, iOS is backdoored and be remotely modified by Apple at any time to suit their business strategy. I don’t recall an iOS backdoor actually being proven, but it is true that Apple has complete control of the device and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a back door. The thing is, this isn’t radically different from GrapheneOS. The hardware, firmware, etc of the Pixel is largely proprietary and AOSP is a massive code base which could host hidden backdoors despite being open source. There’s a lot more to it than that but I’ll leave it there. --- ## Post 40 by @sha123 — 2025-08-30T06:19:23Z > [@Tux](#): > > You don’t need banking “apps” when you can use a Web browser to make payments or read statements In some countries many banks only offer PushTAN via app to view or authorize transactions for online banking. Is is even forbidden to offer insecure alternatives, like SMS TAN. So yes, you need banking apps. --- ## Post 41 by @tauiode — 2025-08-30T07:37:55Z Just search…. android banking apps .apk and you should get a list of hits that are relevant to your locality. --- ## Post 42 by @tauiode — 2025-08-30T07:45:05Z I agree with your point regarding web apps but I was just using banking as a for example. I often use web apps even when open source apps are available. --- ## Post 43 by @SwampTrainer — 2025-08-30T08:11:13Z There’s a lot more than banking apps, they’re just the most common. I first ran into issues rooting android 10 years ago with work email. Apparently streaming services are also likely to throw an error without Magisk or something else. --- ## Post 44 by @tauiode — 2025-08-30T11:52:08Z > [@su](#): > > GOS is safe For now! :wink: --- ## Post 45 by @anon39279085 — 2025-08-30T11:55:27Z It really is not “for now” we have confirmation that this only affects devices that utilize privileged Google Play Services (which is stock os devices like pixel stock, samsung, xiaomi etc. etc.), Google Play sandboxed and AOSP/GOS without google play services will not be affected --- ## Post 46 by @tauiode — 2025-08-30T12:06:37Z Just because their latest tactic doesn’t cause a problem for GOS means nothing. It’s the next move on the chess board we need to be thinking about because it’s almost a nailed on certainty that there will be more to come. --- ## Post 47 by @anon39279085 — 2025-08-30T12:07:37Z I will not comment on things that are uncertain and I do not recommend fear mongering people for things are that are not for sure to happen. --- ## Post 48 by @tauiode — 2025-08-30T12:10:51Z Don’t have a problem with that Goru, you would need a crystal ball never mind a PC for that, but you have to admit that if you look at their past form there is every reason to believe that they only have one ultimate objective in mind. --- ## Post 49 by @jonah — 2025-08-30T14:32:25Z It’s definitely a “leopards would never eat _my_ face” relationship a lot of people have with Google… --- ## Post 50 by @hbxc0re — 2025-08-30T16:36:54Z I’m more curious about the degree to which Google will mess with F-Droid and its current state. --- ## Post 51 by @tauiode — 2025-08-31T05:43:02Z I dunno about that Jonah. You can do things on a Linux desktop that you can only dream of on windows and mac, but I do agree that if autonomy is the only way privacy can be defended in the future then Linux just has to be the only plausible option. TBF I’m trialing Droidian on a Sony at the moment and it does have potential, only the lack of apps is a major drawback but if you are Ok with webapps (as I am), it’s a viable alternative that can only get better. --- ## Post 52 by @Milus — 2025-08-31T05:54:07Z There is a already a confirmation? Do you have a link? Anyway, without their own device, I have doubts about the future of GOS. I know they said they are working with a provider already. But this was also said in 2022 and it went nowhere. Let´s see. I don´t want to go back to iPhones. But I don´t like where Google is driving AOSP. --- ## Post 53 by @anon39279085 — 2025-08-31T13:14:19Z are you kidding me, it is obvious: > **[Google will block sideloading of unverified Android apps starting next year](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/google-will-block-sideloading-of-unverified-android-apps-starting-next-year/)** > > Google says it’s no different than checking IDs at the airport. > Google says that only apps with verified identities will be installable on **certified Android devices, which is virtually every Android-based device—if it has Google services on it, it’s a certified device. If you have a non-Google build of Android on your phone, none of this applies.** (…) > [[Android – Certified - Partners](https://www.android.com/certified/partners)] > **[Android developer verification  |  Android Developers](https://developer.android.com/developer-verification)** > > Get started building your Android apps. > Starting in September 2026, Android will require all apps to be registered by verified developers **in order to be installed on [certified Android devices](https://www.android.com/certified/partners/).** --- ## Post 54 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-01T12:37:51Z I have a few thoughts about this. 1)Android is a very secure platform. Even malicious apps are very limited in what they can do without asking for permissions. They can mostly do passive stuff (read device info, read clipboard). The rest is social engineering. So comparison with desktop OS like Windows and Linux are a bit misleading. 2)If you consider malicious apps a problem (and this is a philosophy, some would say it’s the user responsibility to vet apps before installing them), then they are better ways to protect users. One of the way that would keep it relatively open & enanche security is Google designing certified gatekeepers. This would be any app store or platform with a vetting process. This could include F-Droid, Acrescent, Epic Games Store, etc. Those stores could then send to Google a list of their siging keys as well as the App developer keys. Ideally, this list would be regularly updated in a public list, so any ROM can have a list of certified “safe” apps. Would this restrict user freedom? Definitely. You wouldn’t be able to install your own app, or an app published exclusively on GitHub. Same goes for security critical apps that use a custom F-Droid repo for timely updates. Still, it would be much better than the current proposal - which would effectively turn Google’s Android into EU builds of iOS --- ## Post 55 by @anon57862721 — 2025-09-01T13:28:30Z > [@Encounter5729](#): > > Android is a very secure platform. You sure about that? Not as secure as GOS or even iOS. > [@Encounter5729](#): > > then they are better ways to protect users. There in lies the problem in everyone’s (non tech savvy privacy conscious folks). They are using words like protect and better to fool you into giving up control over your devices by making you believe in their narrative that they are only solution to this problem that suddenly is becoming large enough for them to care about now. Don’t fall for it. > [@Encounter5729](#): > > One of the way that would keep it relatively open & enanche security is Google designing certified gatekeepers. You want Google to have more control over stuff? What kind of backward thinking and logic are you applying? > [@Encounter5729](#): > > Would this restrict user freedom? Definitely. You wouldn’t be able to install your own app, or an app published exclusively on GitHub. So, you don’t see this as a problem? This is literally what we are against and fighting here. For your digital freedoms. Security is just a veil for control and surveillance and taking away freedoms. > [@Encounter5729](#): > > Still, it would be much better than the current proposal You’re wrong. No better way to say it. Your naivete is also leaving me flabbergasted. _sigh_ – You do you but all of what you said is a bad idea. --- ## Post 56 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-02T07:05:53Z > [@anon57862721](#): > > You sure about that? Not as secure as GOS or even iOS. I didn’t say it was more secure than iOS. > [@anon57862721](#): > > Don’t fall for it. I don’t believe Google has users best interest at heart. But if you just say “There is no problem here” to Google, you cut the conversation. Better to accept the problem, and seek solution. My entire point was that even if you want to increase Android security, there are other ways to do it. But I am not going to argue more. If you read my post again you should see I am not for this, but this would be better than Google proposal. Also, I would appreciate if you don’t start attacking my character. --- ## Post 57 by @anon57862721 — 2025-09-02T07:43:58Z > [@Encounter5729](#): > > I didn’t say it was more secure than iOS. It was implied when you said very secure. It infact isn’t very secure. > [@Encounter5729](#): > > If you read my post again you should see I am not for this It didn’t read like it. Anything but vehement opposition with this makes one reasonably think that one may not be against this. > [@Encounter5729](#): > > Also, I would appreciate if you don’t start attacking my character. Nothing about your personality is known and nothing about it have I disparaged. I only expressed my views of your incorrect thinking on this based on your verbiage and comment. --- ## Post 58 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-02T15:05:21Z So you have the absolute truth ? You can disagree on my views but saying my thinking is “incorrect" seems pretentious. Also nuance is important, and not everything is black and white. --- ## Post 59 by @null — 2025-09-02T15:16:46Z > [@anon57862721](#): > > It was implied when you said very secure. It infact isn’t very secure. I didn’t get that from it. Just a reminder 95% of GOS “security“ is because of android. Most of GOS security is mainly tweaks on AOSP android. AOSP is over 2 million lines of code. --- ## Post 60 by @anon63378630 — 2025-09-02T15:28:51Z > [@null](#): > > tweaks this is a substantial understatement --- ## Post 61 by @anon57862721 — 2025-09-02T15:58:43Z > [@Encounter5729](#): > > Also nuance is important, and not everything is black and white. What exactly is not black and white here? What is the nuance here we are not understanding? Are you once again implying that you are okay with what Google is doing? Because the lexicon you have chosen thus far in this thread heavily implies so. And if you still claim that you are still against Google given your verbiage, then I’m afraid this is coming down to your inferior communication skills because if you objectively evaluate the English language, you would be heavily contradicting yourself and hence would mean not making sense. > [@null](#): > > Just a reminder 95% of GOS “security“ is because of android. Means nothing if the last 5% is the most important to severely harden. GOS still takes the cake no matter how large of the security they take from AOSP. --- ## Post 62 by @null — 2025-09-02T16:01:14Z Ofc it is. I’m not saying it isn’t Impressive what they did. But it is still true out of 2 million+ lines of code it is basically only few tweaks overall. GOS is only possible because of AOSP security features. --- ## Post 63 by @anon57862721 — 2025-09-02T16:03:29Z This is coming down to semantics. You said very secure. I took issue with that attribution. It may be secure, but certainly is not very secure. I know, I’m being pedantic but such is my burden to ensure accuracy and clarification with what’s said and what’s meant by the same (because of more of a personal issue on my end). --- ## Post 64 by @heliuth — 2025-09-02T16:04:47Z A switch to Linux smartphone OS would be interesting, yes I’d probably have to give up mobile banking using apps. Yes I’ve already had to give up NFC payments. I think the weak point right now is probably the way the US in particular is moving to ESIM only, I think GOS still relies on Google play partially for some nuances of ESIM management, particularly activation flows? I could be wrong. --- ## Post 65 by @null — 2025-09-02T16:15:07Z The year of linux phone is coming. I can feel it. :smile: --- ## Post 66 by @heliuth — 2025-09-02T16:20:22Z It will never have its year, but it might have a year where it’s the only option if you don’t want to make a Google or Apple account :slight_smile: --- ## Post 67 by @tauiode — 2025-09-02T16:52:01Z Linux will be the only game in town if screwgle have their way. --- ## Post 68 by @crossroads — 2025-09-02T17:34:47Z I think it’s time to think of Android phone not as all-round solution for everything smartphone can do, but just as a id/basic services device. I expect it will be if not only, then preferred way to use government services and IDs, banking, insurance, school activities, etc. And if people want privacy, they should treat it like this. You will pay 150-200 for basic phone with 5+ years of support and use it only for things mentioned. It can be offline or turned-off for most of the time. Then you’ll need 2nd device, probably de-googled android, or maybe even linux phone, that you will use for private communication, media player, your data, organizer, fitness tracker, maps, etc. Other option is iPhone, and I would suggest that one to anyone who is not interested in alternative mobile systems. --- ## Post 69 by @anon32558482 — 2025-09-02T18:40:48Z There is a petition at [change.org](http://change.org) about this. Tuta posted this on Bluesky. [Petition · Stop Google from limiting APK file usage - United States · Change.org](https://chng.it/266CVRqSPF) --- ## Post 70 by @tauiode — 2025-09-02T20:54:23Z …. but I want privacy for IDs, banking, insurance, school activities, etc as well. So the obvious answer is to take the 2nd device option (pass on the 1st device), and just use webapps instead of dedicated apps. My Sony Droidian phone is becoming more attractive as this thread rolls on. I can almost hear it saying…. use me! use me! :wink: It’s only when the number of FOSS users gets large enough to warrant commercial interest that retailers and service providers will seize upon the obvious gap in the market. --- ## Post 71 by @anon51983832 — 2025-09-02T21:02:10Z > **[GrapheneOS (@GrapheneOS)](https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1962911846769238250#m)** > > Google's developer verification changes don't apply to GrapheneOS and are a positive thing for us since it will mean there will be many apps available for GrapheneOS which aren't available for a Google Mobile Services device with the stock OS.... --- ## Post 72 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-02T21:53:20Z The nuance is that what is secure for your average Joe will not be for a whistleblower. Basically, security is not absolute. Also the same goes for user freedom : normal Android doesn’t run with root. If you dont want to have a constructive conversation, I am done. One doesn’t have to be 100% against or 100% for something. I dont want to argue further cause I apparently have “inferior communication skills”. --- ## Post 73 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-02T21:56:27Z Hard disagree on this. This will imensely hurt the whole ecosystem. Many apps developer might stop development as they lose the majority of their user base. --- ## Post 74 by @anon39279085 — 2025-09-02T22:09:55Z you are reffering to GrapheneOS’s statement yes? And I’m with you, I know a friend who’s stuck with a phone and due to a new device, Latest Pixel supported by GrapheneOS, if that rolled out earlier I dont think he would’ve been able to sid- (_cough_ excuse me I just got a report that Louis now called it installing an app and some fans might get mad at me for calling the S- word, _cough_) Installed any apps outside the Google Play Store due to it still utilizing Google Play Services. I am very very curious what happens if you do disable or uninstall play services on stock roms (through ADB and Universal debloater for uninstalling play services, and I know y’all that are gonna say “It will install back after you reset the phone”, I’m aware, shush) --- ## Post 75 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-02T22:25:22Z Yes, I was referring to the GOS statement. Can you even disable “GPS” ? What I find crazy is even Chinese phones\* haven’t blocked third-party install (better therm than sideloading?), although they make it extremely hard. I wonder whether it will really be completely blocked. Even Google publish an app only on Github (Edge Gallery). But regardless or whether it will be completely blocked, this will afraid potential new users of F-Droid. The EU currently has a comment period on a upcoming legislation called the Digital Fairness Act. I encourage EU citizens to comment that we need fair platforms where all stakeholders have their say..Something like that. [European Commission - Have your say](https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14622-Digital-Fairness-Act_en) (Worth a try, although this was supposed to be prevented with the DMA already) \*by which I mean phones by chinese.manufactures in the Chinese market, not international Chinese phones) --- ## Post 76 by @anon39279085 — 2025-09-02T22:26:20Z > [@Encounter5729](#): > > Can you even disable “GPS” ? yes you can disable it with no additional tweak. --- ## Post 77 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-02T22:27:22Z I meant Google Play Services, hence the quotes. --- ## Post 78 by @anon39279085 — 2025-09-02T22:28:27Z I understood that, yes --- ## Post 79 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-02T22:30:13Z OK I am surprised that stock Android phones continue working normally after it is disabled. Would have thought they relied on it for some essential features. --- ## Post 80 by @anon39279085 — 2025-09-02T22:32:11Z Tested on my samsung real quick well it will spam you with notifications bragging you to enable it on apps that rely on it. For me the most annoying was Google Messages and Watch7 Manager, even my watch relies on Play Services for the connection alone, yikes. Maybe I could get around to like disabling it, sideloading, then enabling it again, that will have to be tested. Or maybe uninstalling it all together will work who knows when this thing happens we’ll see Edit: Has stopped begging for the most part, good, seems only if you attempt to run the apps now. --- ## Post 81 by @micdan — 2025-09-03T00:21:38Z Age verification but for Android… lmao --- ## Post 82 by @anon39279085 — 2025-09-03T19:30:55Z Nonono Micdan sir, it is not age verification! it is like checking an ID at the airport separate from the bag screening! > **(i)** > > _If you got that’s sarcasm in the first place, good job intelligent individual, if you had to reveal this to see it, I don’t blame you, does not come off as sarcastic at first_ --- ## Post 83 by @Tux — 2025-09-03T19:54:33Z > Would this restrict user freedom? Definitely. You wouldn’t be able to install your own app, or an app published exclusively on GitHub. Same goes for security critical apps that use a custom F-Droid repo for timely updates. That’s not good enough. It’s my device and taking away from me the ability to do whatever I want with it, including running rm -rf /, is insulting. --- ## Post 84 by @anon39279085 — 2025-09-03T20:08:01Z > [@Tux](#): > > including running rm -rf /, is insulting. for legal reasons please do not run the above command not even in superuser privileges thanks, none here claims any damages for running this command --- ## Post 85 by @crossroads — 2025-09-03T20:19:47Z > [@tauiode](#): > > but I want privacy for IDs, banking, insurance, school activities, etc as well. You can have it. Just make google account only for playstore on that device, don’t add contacts, calendar, social network apps, probably not even SIM card (but it might be needed for verification/activation of e.g. bank app), disable/remove all google, samsung, facebook, microsoft… apps that were preinstalled. And you’ll have quite good privacy there. --- ## Post 86 by @anon61753997 — 2025-09-04T04:11:44Z And then you realize that your banking and government app send data to Google. Ask how I know :sob: --- ## Post 87 by @tauiode — 2025-09-04T06:52:35Z I am already completely degoogled, (see my earlier post), and did it over a period of time with a spoofing phone for anything that contained the G virus. Carrying two phones around with you isn’t that difficult TBH providing one of them is a compact and five to eight years ago when I was doing it there were plenty of very small phones around. I had a brief flirtation with UT along the way as well but decided to put the Linux phone idea on the back burner and wait it out for it to mature. At the moment I’m using a completely degoogled iode phone as the daily driver but I recently bought a phone compatible with Droidian that I’m playing with. Waydroid has really improved in recent times for running FOSS apps on and right now I am testing different browsers for optimising the use of webapps with. Will probably end up with three maybe four different browsers where each browser is optimised for a different purpose. So sites such as this will be in the social media browser (medium security), anything where you need a payment facility (ebay, paypal, etc for example) will be in the one dedicated as banking so will be of the highest security. I’m hoping that by dividing them up using different browsers will just make things that little bit easier to organise and manage the use of them. --- ## Post 88 by @tauiode — 2025-09-04T12:04:28Z Not sure there is much if anything that can truly be ‘disabled’ on a stock android phone. You would have better chances of finding a handbrake on a submarine. :wink: --- ## Post 89 by @Alvah.Lind64 — 2025-09-14T10:15:53Z > [@crossroads](#): > > think it’s time to think of Android phone not as all-round solution for everything smartphone can do, but just as a id/basic services device. I expect it will be if not only, then preferred way to use government services and IDs, banking, insurance, school activities, etc. And if people want privacy, they should treat it like this. You will pay 150-200 for basic phone with 5+ years of support and use it only for things mentioned. It can be offline or turned-off for most of the time. > Then you’ll need 2nd device, probably de-googled android, or maybe even linux phone, that you will use for private communication, media player, your data, organizer, fitness tracker, maps, etc. > Other option is iPhone, and I would suggest that one to anyone who is not interested in alternative mobile systems. An alternative approach is using Android’s Linux Terminal app to run an isolated VM, within which you install the OS of your choice and your private comms, media player, etc. --- ## Post 90 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-18T11:05:40Z [Google said](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/android-16-qpr2-beta-1-is-here.html) you will still be able to sideload trough ADB: > As a developer, you are free to install apps without verification by using ADB, so you can continue to test apps that are not intended or not yet ready to distribute to the wider consumer population. --- ## Post 91 by @anon57862721 — 2025-09-18T11:19:43Z But that’s the issue. Google should not require developer ID verification for users to download and install apps on the devices and software they have already paid for. I should be able to install any app on my device from any developer who may not or cannot get verified. It’s about freedom at large - that’s the issue and that’s what Google is trying to take away like how Apple has always had it. --- ## Post 92 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-18T12:16:26Z I totally agree, but I shared because it is useful to know that it won’t be totally blocked, although very severely limited. --- ## Post 93 by @Regime6045 — 2025-09-18T12:54:21Z **[It seems to be integrated into AOSP](https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/PackageInstaller#DEVELOPER_VERIFICATION_FAILED_REASON_DEVELOPER_BLOCKED), not just Play Services**, so there _might_ be some impact on GrapheneOS, LineageOS etc. unless they patch it out. Although maybe not, as Google said it would only restrict installations on “certified” devices. Theoretically, with the `adb` workaround, you could install Shizuku and then use it to install any “unverified” APK on your phone without needing to connect to a PC ([via “wireless debugging”](https://shizuku.rikka.app/guide/setup/#start-via-wireless-debugging)) Then, my understanding is that once an “unverified” app is installed, you can update it without further restrictions. Another potential workaround could be F-Droid if they register with Google. I’m not sure how the verification works, but potentially any app compiled and signed by F-Droid could then be approved even if the actual developer remains anonymous. --- ## Post 94 by @tauiode — 2025-09-19T05:55:36Z How folks on here can discuss privacy with the words ‘google’ and ‘privacy’ in the same sentence is beyond me. You either accept the compromise in the form of trading some of your data or you bite on the bullet and completely cut all ties with big tech. MicroG and Aurora is only a compromise in that it provides a minimising option but it isn’t 100% and likely never will be. --- ## Post 95 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-19T12:23:11Z > [@Regime6045](#): > > Another potential workaround could be F-Droid if they register with Google. I’m not sure how the verification works, but potentially any app compiled and signed by F-Droid could then be approved even if the actual developer remains anonymous. Absolutely not. That’s what I proposed as a better solution (then got bashed by another user), but it’s NOT proposed actually. --- ## Post 96 by @Regime6045 — 2025-09-19T13:30:34Z > [@Encounter5729](#): > > it’s NOT proposed actually By Google or by F-Droid? Do you know what the plan is on either side? --- ## Post 97 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-20T10:38:49Z Google is very clear what’s their plan is : Sideloading an app requires you to submit personal info like your name, phone number and email. They say an ID may also be required. [https://developer.android.com/developer-verification](https://developer.android.com/developer-verification) Nowhere do they talk that third-parties will be able to certify apps. --- ## Post 98 by @tauiode — 2025-09-22T05:39:33Z They would argue that they aren’t restricting your rights to be free to choose which software you put on your own phone, it’s just that you didn’t buy the correct device by pointing to Pinephone, FuriOS or Librem as possible alternatives. Not that I use one myself as I only buy Sony’s but then again, I only install FOSS OS and app’s. --- ## Post 99 by @anon63378630 — 2025-09-22T09:21:57Z > [@tauiode](#): > > Pinephone, FuriOS or Librem as possible alternatives these aren’t alternatives. FuriOS uses Hybris iirc so it actually still has Android driver junk and is using Linux 4.19 which went EOL last December! - [linux-furiphone-radon/Makefile at 3f977f03226747ee5efb554744dd6c17e5d8a3be · FuriLabs/linux-furiphone-radon · GitHub](https://github.com/FuriLabs/linux-furiphone-radon/blob/3f977f03226747ee5efb554744dd6c17e5d8a3be/Makefile#L1-L5) - [linux-furiphone-krypton/Makefile at ff386699e7325342ab0cafc9f42239b6e2002c03 · FuriLabs/linux-furiphone-krypton · GitHub](https://github.com/FuriLabs/linux-furiphone-krypton/blob/ff386699e7325342ab0cafc9f42239b6e2002c03/Makefile#L1-L5) - [Linux 4.19.325 [LWN.net]](https://lwn.net/Articles/1000874/) PinePhone and Librem can run eg. pmOS with a mainline kernel but it isn’t daily driver material yet. --- ## Post 100 by @tauiode — 2025-09-22T10:04:39Z ….what makes you believe that I think they are legitimate alternatives? I already admitted that I don’t use one. The point I’m making is that legally speaking they have every right to say that if you want to download software from us your device has to meet with our specifications. They are just making sure it does. --- ## Post 101 by @KevPham — 2025-11-05T20:17:19Z > **[Google settlement with Epic caps Play Store fees, boosts other Android app...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/11/google-settlement-with-epic-caps-play-store-fees-boosts-other-android-app-stores/)** > > Google will make several changes to Android app support globally, supported through at least 2032. Seems like Google’s push for mandatory registration was caused by their recent settlement with Epic Games to better support third-party app stores. > Importantly, Google is allowed to create “reasonable requirements” for certifying these app stores. Reviews may be carried out, and Google can charge fees for that process; however, the fees cannot be revenue-dependent. --- ## Post 102 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-11-06T19:01:58Z The mildish requirements are compensated by these changes being applied **globally**. Any coutry-dependant solution fails to gain traction, as we have seen with the relative failure of iOS third-party app store in the EU. --- ## Post 103 by @doug — 2025-11-07T16:09:47Z > Seems like Google’s push for mandatory registration was caused by their recent settlement with Epic Games to better support third-party app stores. With this change, Google goes from having a moat around the default app distribution channel to having a moat around ALL distribution channels. This seems pretty clearly the opposite of the alleged “goal of increasing choice and competition“. With this change, Google will be able to tell developers, “if you attempt to distribute ad-blocking software, we’ll blacklist you and none of your software will never run on Android again“. With this change, Google gains the ability to, for example, charge all app publishers a fee for every install of their app. Whereas previously, if app makers didn’t like Google’s terms they could pursue other avenues for distribution, now any developer who doesn’t concede to Google’s demands, can be completely cut off from their users, with no fallback. It seems to me like any business that publishes an Android app would see this move as a potential threat to their revenue. Have any well known companies expressed opposition to this plan? --- ## Post 104 by @Blackbird — 2025-11-07T16:25:10Z > [@Keep Android Open](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/keep-android-open/32422): > > F-Droid led initiative to keep Android open to sideloading. See [this article](https://f-droid.org/en/2025/10/28/sideloading.html) for more context. I will let you visit the page but one action is to sign this [open letter](https://docs.fediverse.foundation/pad/#/2/pad/view/OkfvdusnqafC8Wv+WUVpXB8RQk6XUFxmFHIa6CiBxQI/) --- ## Post 105 by @user1 — 2025-11-13T07:09:19Z > **[Breaking: Google is easing up on Android's new sideloading restrictions!](https://www.androidauthority.com/android-power-users-install-unverified-apps-3615310/)** > > Google has announced it is building a new way for 'experienced users' to install Android apps that haven't been verified. > Google is working to make it easier for ‘experienced users’ to install apps made by unverified developers. > The company is building a new ‘advanced flow’ that allows these users to accept the risks of installing unverified apps. > Previously, the only permitted method for experienced users to install apps from unverified developers was to use ADB. --- ## Post 106 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-11-13T12:28:47Z Yeah, we will see. Still will “criminalize” using third-party app stores, which is worrying. --- ## Post 107 by @anon57862721 — 2025-11-13T12:38:55Z The actual blog post I suspect most people will not read/find so here it is: > **[Android developer verification: Early access starts now as we continue to...](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-developer-verification-early.html)** > > News and insights on the Android platform, developer tools, and events. --- ## Post 108 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-11-13T13:55:47Z > Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn’t verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren’t tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature now and will share more details in the coming months. So basically, a scare screen with some kind of time lock (eg wait 5 minutes to unlock “dangerous sideloading :zombie:”) Horrible UX that will discourage many people to sideload, which is precisely the point. --- ## Post 109 by @anon57862721 — 2025-11-13T13:59:20Z > [@Encounter5729](#): > > Horrible UX that will discourage many people to sideload, which is precisely the point. Doesn’t matter too much. People who want to do it, will do it. A small pain compared to what it could have been. --- ## Post 110 by @anon39279085 — 2025-11-13T16:25:25Z Wow is it really hot take to make it harder for average people who potentially are Falling victim into installing actual malware or falling into a scam they have no idea while us enthusiasts who actually have the common sense can at least have the perk? Way to go people Can we for even a few seconds be grateful we got this compromise? Also a more likely speculation would be the option locked into developer options, and enabling it gives a head up risk, locking the user likely to click next for around the next 10 - 30 seconds before allowing it Another one also suggested for in cases of actual malware or to even discourage scammers, make it so that after you enable it, you get the risk message, then you wait approx. 8-24 hours before it turns on or toggle it again to turn it on. would allow to make the average person finding it second guess for installing that app that is potentially malicious or otherwise make a scammer doing this just wasteful to even bother trying. --- ## Post 111 by @nateb — 2025-11-13T16:51:24Z > **[Breaking: Google is easing up on Android's new sideloading restrictions!](https://www.androidauthority.com/android-power-users-install-unverified-apps-3615310/)** > > Google has announced it is building a new way for 'experienced users' to install Android apps that haven't been verified. --- ## Post 112 by @anon39279085 — 2025-11-13T16:54:33Z Nate appreciated getting out there but You’re, just being honest here, late > [@Google wants to make sideloading Android apps "safer" by verifying developers’ identities](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/google-wants-to-make-sideloading-android-apps-safer-by-verifying-developers-identities/30473/105): > > Google is working to make it easier for ‘experienced users’ to install apps made by unverified developers. The company is building a new ‘advanced flow’ that allows these users to accept the risks of installing unverified apps. Previously, the only permitted method for experienced users to install apps from unverified developers was to use ADB. --- ## Post 113 by @anon57862721 — 2025-11-13T16:55:20Z I think the news deserves its own thread though as that thread is about Google making it harder. Let’s have good news related to bad news in its own thread. It’s easier to point it out to people. But this is a judgement call if PG team is going to moderate this or not. --- ## Post 114 by @nateb — 2025-11-13T16:56:45Z Yeah, sorry. I did see that thread but I figured they were different enough. I’ll defer to the Team’s judgement on this one. They can delete if they think it’s too similar. --- ## Post 115 by @anon39279085 — 2025-11-13T16:58:13Z I think to be respectful they could merge it, but you are all right it is up to the moderation/team to decide ~~Edit: called it, well Thanks @KevPham now go correct your post about Valve’s chip :stuck_out_tongue:~~ Kev: Done! --- ## Post 117 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-11-14T14:16:51Z Responding to both @anon57862721 and @anon39279085 Yes, it’s better than what it could have been. At the same time, I see no point in cheering. It still is going to severely reduce the reach of those apps (and app stores) to second-class citizen. I really don’t care whether workarounds exist. My concern isn’t that I wouldn’t be able to sidoad, it’s the **systemic impact it will have on the FOSS ecosystem** including for the likes of F-Droid. Many developers (see Breezy Weather) refuse to KYC themselves either for security or philosophical reasons. Just an example. Currently I can easily set up F-Droid for someone and allow them to bypass the Play Store. This would be either more difficult or impossible(1) going forward. (1) Because it seems likely Google would treat F-Droid like any other source, untrusted and with scare screens. I proposed [earlier](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/google-wants-to-make-sideloading-android-apps-safer-by-verifying-developers-identities/30473/54) a totally reasonable system that would in essence block installing internet APKs but allow installs from third-party App Stores like F-Droid or any app signature certified as safe by a trusted entity. If this was implemented, then I wouldn’t mind scare screens for totally, uncertified apps. But currently this is proposed for all apps. --- ## Post 118 by @throwaway3rdW2025 — 2025-11-14T23:26:50Z Disclaimer: I’m not here to spread rumors/speculations. So, no conspiracy theories, that’s not what I’m about to say. As a third world resident, I couldn’t help but notice a pattern that is extremely frequent here around my country and with our politicians. For example, let’s say poor people (like myself, based on income that is) get taxed 30%. The government would announce that they are thinking about raising taxes from 30% to 70% which quickly generates a reaction (as expected), then a few months later before any taxes get raised of course, they change their decision to lower the new taxes from 70% to 45% and people celebrate. The plan was always to raise it to 45% but if they had done that initially, it would’ve generated the same reaction from the people. The crazy thing is that people run around celebrating the “win” that their taxes are now “only" 45% haha. Actually, that is extremely common here in farmers markets as well: you go up to the seller and ask for the price of oranges, the seller knows the buyer is gonna haggle, so the seller jacks up the initial price and lets the buyer haggle up until a certain point (the true price all along), and then the buyer feels like he got a good deal. --- ## Post 119 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-11-15T13:49:55Z This is a classic marketing plot as well. Consider a shop. You want to buy something, let’s say a new watch. You had your own price on mind. Now you enter and see a 1000 bucks watch, then a 500 one. Finally you see one at 200. You will now consider the one at 200 “a bargain” even though you would previously have considered that expensive. It’s very difficult to avoid that bias. I think sometime it’s a bit of coping mechanism. Like even myself I surprise myself of this. My country has no facial recognition so like before I was all cheering since it’s one of the few country in the western world where it is illegal. But now I realise that more and more CCTV cameras are being installed, and I should have pushed to ban those. --- ## Post 120 by @CTRLexe — 2025-11-24T02:28:02Z > **[Breaking: Google is easing up on Android's new sideloading restrictions!](https://www.androidauthority.com/android-power-users-install-unverified-apps-3615310/)** > > Google has announced it is building a new way for 'experienced users' to install Android apps that haven't been verified. --- ## Post 121 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-11-25T13:59:11Z Duplicate --- ## Post 122 by @CTRLexe — 2025-11-25T17:31:20Z In my defense, I originally made it into a separate thread before it got merged. I didn’t even know someone else replied with the same article. --- ## Post 123 by @Libre_Software_Enjoyer — 2025-11-25T18:20:25Z > [@Pragmatic](#): > > We can’t wait for Accrescent to be developed so that we’re no longer dependent on this Play Store crap. We hope that more and more developers will publish their applications on it and that this will have a domino effect, with even more developers publishing their applications on Accrescent. Use F-Droid --- ## Post 124 by @privacy.slouchy — 2025-11-25T19:25:04Z Mandatory [F-Droid security bulletin](https://privsec.dev/posts/android/f-droid-security-issues/). Both [PrivacyGuide](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/android/obtaining-apps/) & [GrapheneOS](https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/23666-response-to-misinformation-about-our-sensors-permission-from-f-droid) teams recommend all other options before resorting to F-Droid --- ## Post 125 by @Libre_Software_Enjoyer — 2025-11-27T19:15:39Z Some issues like F-Droid using outdated Debian are valid. But the fact that F-Droid enforces reproducibility (by building apps that are not reproducible by default) and only allows apps that are entirely Free and Open Software is the main reason I recommend it in the first place. --- ## Post 126 by @jonah — 2025-11-27T20:05:54Z > [@Pragmatic](#): > > We can’t wait for Accrescent to be developed so that we’re no longer dependent on this Play Store crap. Accrescent seems to be encouraging Google’s program here recently so I am not holding out hope that they will present a viable alternative. --- ## Post 127 by @anon57621611 — 2025-11-27T20:16:09Z > [@jonah](#): > > Accrescent seems to be encouraging Google’s program That’s a first for me :sweat_smile: --- ## Post 128 by @Pragmatic — 2025-11-27T20:27:59Z Hmm… what do you mean by that, that Accrescent will ultimately not keep its initial promises? Do you have a statement from Accrescent on this subject? --- ## Post 129 by @yes — 2025-11-27T20:58:30Z They recently released a [blog](https://blog.accrescent.app/posts/android-developer-verification/), but I don’t see how it encourages the program. --- ## Post 130 by @jonah — 2025-11-27T21:03:37Z Right, the blog where they said it doesn’t affect them because they’re going to allow Accrescent app developers to participate in Google’s program (lol), and where they said they joined the program themselves, which is implicitly approving it :laughing: > **[Keep Android Open](https://keepandroidopen.org/)** > > Advocating for Android as a free, open platform for everyone to build apps on. --- ## Post 131 by @anon57621611 — 2025-11-28T07:00:01Z I don’t see how Accrescent’s blog post proves anything bad except that they will future proof their app if this thing goes full active. This is the most important sentence from the blog post: `We also plan to continue allowing developers to submit apps to Accrescent without registering their apps through Android developer verification.` --- ## Post 132 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-11-29T18:21:49Z At the same time, what choice do they have ? Just like App Stores on iOS need Apple blessing, Accrescent wants to continue functioning on most android devices in the future and need to respect Android rules. Sure, they should fight harder, but I don’t think they are approving it per se. --- ## Post 133 by @jonah — 2025-11-29T18:26:59Z > [@Encounter5729](#): > > At the same time, what choice do they have ? I linked it above. > ### Developers: Resist and refuse > > If you are an app developer, _ **do not sign up** _ for the early access program, perform identity verification, or accept an invitation to the Android Developer Console. Respond (politely) to any invitation with a list of your concerns and objections. > > —— _It is only through developer acquiescence that their takeover plan can possibly succeed._ —— > > Discourage fellow app developers and organizations from signing up to the program. Use community forums, social media, and blog posts to spread the message. Include the [FreeDroidWarn library](https://github.com/woheller69/FreeDroidWarn) in your code to inform your app users. > > If you are a Google employee or contractor of good conscience and have additional insight about the program, including planned technical implementation details or additional rationales for the program, please reach out to [tips@keepandroidopen.org](mailto:tips@keepandroidopen.org) from a _non-work_ machine and a _non-gmail_ account. Your information will be kept in strict confidence. --- ## Post 134 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-11-29T18:29:10Z > [@jonah](#): > > Discourage fellow app developers and organizations from signing up to the program. Use community forums, social media, and blog posts to spread the message. Include the [FreeDroidWarn library](https://github.com/woheller69/FreeDroidWarn) in your code to inform your app users. I think your view is too binary. Resisting is of course the preferable outcome; however not doing so is not cautioning. --- ## Post 135 by @anon39279085 — 2025-11-29T18:37:34Z collective developers not signing up/resisting, users continuing to express frustration is what will help this decision not come to fruition therefore this isnt even a matter of binary. Accrescent is also risking losing developers with this move who are collectively resisting --- ## Post 136 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-11-29T18:39:01Z I agree. I just disagree with Jonah’s wording. --- ## Post 137 by @phnx — 2025-11-29T18:48:56Z I don’t follow the logic here. I know many people here are big F-Droid fans, but how is it better that Accrescent – which is the only reasonable up-and-coming alternative to the Play Store – kills their own project by becoming incompatible with 99% of Android devices? I also don’t understand the notion that Accrescent risks losing developers when they are explicitly **not** requiring developers to be verified by Google. There seems to be a lot of misattributed anger being directed towards Accrescent when it should be directed at Google. --- ## Post 138 by @null — 2025-11-29T20:41:59Z > [@phnx](#): > > I know many people here are big F-Droid fans, but how is it better that Accrescent F-Droid has apps unlike Accrescent? I wouldn’t say I’m big fan of F-Droid but there isn’t any real alternatives to it. You can say Obtainium but have fun trying to explaining it to a non-tech guy, even if you setting it up for them they wouldn’t update apps or know how to find more apps. > [@phnx](#): > > which is the only reasonable up-and-coming alternative to the Play Store How can it be a alternative to Play Store? When most people here only uses Play Store or Aurora store to get apps they need for day to day life like banking, government and big tech apps? I can see Accrescent become a alternative to F-Droid in maybe 10 years at the speed it’s has been developed. --- ## Post 139 by @anon39279085 — 2025-11-29T21:05:27Z > [@phnx](#): > > I also don’t understand the notion that Accrescent risks losing developers when they are explicitly **not** requiring developers to be verified by Google. if a platform (like accrescent) supports something that is anti-consumer/anti-competitive (android developer verification), the developers that are strictly against it are going to show their way of not endorsing accrescent’s support of it by pulling their apps out, that is it is a risk not that it will necessarily happen. basically also what @null and many others will say by showing support instead of against, it tends to break that collective refusal I mentioned before (however sure if Google does decide tripling down or whatever it may be and still passes, defeated, fine, app stores can simply support the choice of android developer verification but only if a hypothetical defeat happens and we should simply focus on defeating android developer verification instead of jumping the gun like this) --- ## Post 140 by @yolakalemowa — 2026-07-21T13:07:04Z man this story is really compmlicated and I tried to read EVERY thread on it on all forums (PG, Graphene, Obtanium Github, Accrescent, KeepAndroidOpen) Could someone very kindly try to explain this to me but especially listing the diff. scenarios from both Developers’ and Users’ perspectives? Too many variables confusing me: 1- Whether the App Developer agrees to comply or not. 2- Whether user is using certified Android device like Android or non-cert. like Graphene 3- Whether user wants the app through Google Store (but through certified android phone vs non-cert Android) or through smthn like Obtanium or F-Droid (through cert and non-cert Androids) For ex. Obtanium’s dev. announced that thay’re not gonna comply. And that, therefore, obtanium users (not sure if that means those who wisht o install obtanium, apps THROUGH obtanium, or BOTH) will have to go thru that B.S. advanced 24hr wait process. I’d really appreciate some explanation. thank yo so much --- ## Post 141 by @phnx — 2026-07-21T14:29:47Z ![image](https://forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/3X/2/a/2a47f4a349f9dbf66d5ee0cda6d8fe8f665e92f5.jpeg) I think this flow chart lays it out well with the caveat that this whole deal only applies to certified Android devices. --- ## Post 142 by @yolakalemowa — 2026-07-21T14:34:37Z thanks but wording is a bit confusing still. "choice for where to distribute apps (meaning app stores? Google Play vs Obtanium vs FDroid or meaning if the Developers COMPLY with Google and then dist. on one of those stores. Sorry perhaps it’s only confusing to me but I’ve been trying to understand this shit for hours now on/from multiple forums (GOS, Accrescent Github, KeepAndroidOpen, etc..) --- ## Post 143 by @phnx — 2026-07-21T14:37:48Z More like if you want to distribute an app the starting point is whether or not your are willing to verify your identity since that will affect where you are able to distribute it (e.g. Google Play Store will only accept verified apps), if that makes sense. --- ## Post 144 by @yolakalemowa — 2026-07-21T14:41:26Z why does the “NOT VERIFIED” route not also have a APP STORES branch under it and only sideloading? Isn’t obtanium, f-droid, accrescent, appstores?