- Does this mean sideloading is going away on Android?
Absolutely not. Sideloading is fundamental to Android and it is not going away. Our new developer identity requirements are designed to protect users and developers from bad actors, not to limit choice. We want to make sure that if you download an app, it’s truly from the developer it claims to be published from, regardless of where you get the app. Verified developers will have the same freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through sideloading or through any app store they prefer.
- Making APKs available to your test team
If your team’s current test process relies on distributing APKs to testers for installation using methods other than adb, you will need to verify your identity and register the package. This also applies if you make APKs available to your test teams through Google Play Internal Testing, Firebase App Distribution, or similar solutions through other distribution partners.
- Do I still need to register my apps if I’m only distributing to a limited number of users?
We recommend you register. It’s a simple, one-time process that will allow anyone to download and install your app. However, if you prefer not to, we are also introducing a free developer account type that will allow teachers, students, and hobbyists to distribute apps to a limited number of devices without needing to provide a government ID.
- What can I do to prepare for developer verification?
The best way to get ready and stay updated is to sign up for early access. We’ll start sending invitations in October.
We recommend you participate in developer verification because, even though verification is not required to develop apps with Android Studio, you will need it to distribute apps to certified Android devices. Apps installed through enterprise management tools on managed devices will also be installable without being registered.
Imagine if every program on your PC had to be verified by Microsoft, or Canonical.
Fuck that noise.
This won’t increase security. This just allows Google to tighten the reigns on their system to push out alternative app stores and enhance their monopoly. What do you think will be in the developer agreement - guarantee there’s clauses preventing YouTube frontend apps (Freetube, Grayjay) and root alternative apps (Magisk, Shizuku). If it’s not there on day one it will magically appear in a few months - and then the rug will be pulled from under those devs and they’ll be banned from working on Android again on anything, potentially sued, and Google will be able to enforce it because they know exactly whom the devs are and have their government IDs.
I don’t know, man. If every app were signed, and one of them fucked my system, the signature would make the author of the app that enabled the fuckery pretty clear. With an unsigned app, anyone could tamper with the package before I get it: I can’t authenticate the package is untampered, and the author can repudiate they introduced any fuckery.
They already wrote the free developer account for limited distributions doesn’t require those.
None of that is necessary when installs over Android Debug Bridge bypass verification entirely.
Enforcement only applies to certified Android devices, ie, those certified for and that ship with Play Protect, and even Play Protect can be disabled.
This all seems like a huge nothingburger by the willfully illiterate.
I totally agree with you that having Google as the only one able to assign these certificates is a problem. This needs to change (and I rely heavily on the EU to enforce this), but I still think that everyone who is publishing an app to an undisclosed number of people (and therefore there is no implicit trust by design) should identify him- or herself to some authority.
Why? Google is demanding personal ID for devs, but we have no idea who wrote code for the Google apps we install - was it a Californian, was it slopped together by an AI, was an NSA analyst supplying code? Sorry, Google deems that’s all private. Code is closed. Trust us.
Now, open source devs who value their privacy are forced to give it all up for users to continue using their vettable code that has earned them user trust over years or decades - just to give Google direct power over them. Power to ban from the store, power to sue, to litigate - you presume for benevolent reasons, however there is not much reason to believe this, given Google’s history.
Google has repeatedly spread malware through their store and it has had real world impacts, so if they want to improve their security and more thoroughly vet the devs that they charge to use their store to distribute their code, fine - that’s their call. But that’s not all they’re doing, is it - they’re demanding ID from any dev that uses any storefront, even if that storefront is completely out of Google’s hands and has over a decade of never distributing a single piece of malware.
Don’t be fooled, this is a ploy to kill third party apps and third party stores, while enabling Google to strike at any devs of apps they take issue with.