zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
This is what Apple already does, isn't it? Why wouldn't it work for Google too?

>>sltkr+Tz
Apple requires you to get a developer account with them.

Nowhere does that require you to go and get a DUNS number, which is onerous for a single developer to do without the infrastructure of a company.

>>indror+WB
Never heard of DUNS. It seems to be a US company *Dun & Bradstreet) that provides business intelligence.

It seems kind of odd to me to rely on some kind of external hidden "credit agency"-style company for this? And why would DUNS want to know about some kid in their basement in Bangledesh making (non-malicious) apps, and why would the kid want Dun & Bradstreet to know about them? It makes no sense at all.

>>andyfe+lE
They're trying to control malware. Tying apps that may be malicious to an identity that takes some degree of cost and effort to establish seems sensible in that light.

It's not that the identity prevents malware/abuse, but publishing any malware to the store burns the identity and establishing another is harder than simply coming up with a new email address. It's not necessarily the best scheme out of there, but it makes sense given their apparent goal.