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.
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?
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.
6 Likes
Yeah, we will see. Still will “criminalize” using third-party app stores, which is worrying.
The actual blog post I suspect most people will not read/find so here it is:
1 Like
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 
”) Horrible UX that will discourage many people to sideload, which is precisely the point.
1 Like
Doesn’t matter too much. People who want to do it, will do it. A small pain compared to what it could have been.
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
Nate appreciated getting out there but
You’re, just being honest here, late
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.
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.
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 Kev: Done!
Responding to both @JG and @GorujoCY
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 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.
3 Likes
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.
6 Likes
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.