zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
Official announcement: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-...

More info:

https://developer.android.com/developer-verification

https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

Personally...we all know the Play Store is chock full of malicious garbage, so the verification requirements there don't do jack to protect users. The way I see it, this is nothing but a power grab, a way for Google to kill apps like Revanced for good. They'll just find some bullshit reason to suspend your developer account if you do something they don't like.

Every time I hear mentions of "safety" from the folks at Google, I'm reminded that there's a hidden Internet permission on Android that can neuter 95% of malicious apps. But it's hidden, apparently because keeping users from using it to block ads on apps is of greater concern to Google than keeping people safe.

> we will be confirming who the developer is, not reviewing the content of their app or where it came from

This is such an odd statement. I mean, surely they have to be willing to review the contents of apps at some point (if only to suspend the accounts of developers who are actually producing malware), or else this whole affair does nothing but introduce friction.

TFA had me believing that bypassing the restriction might've been possible by disabling Play Protect, but that doesn't seem to be the case since there aren't any mentions of it in the official info we've been given.

On the flip side, that's one less platform I care about supporting with my projects. We're down to just Linux and Windows if you're not willing to sell your soul (no, I will not be making a Google account) just for the right to develop for a certain platform.

>>876368+tk
> But it's hidden, apparently because keeping users from using it to block ads on apps is of greater concern to Google than keeping people safe.

The internet permission has nothing to do with ads? It's a hidden permission because:

1) Internet connection is so ubiquitous as to just be noise if displayed

2) It's not robust, apps without Internet permission can still exfiltrate data relatively easily by bouncing off of other apps using Intents and similar

>>kllrno+hv
I mean, I just did a quick look over the installed apps on this phone and ~1/4 of them would work perfectly well without an internet connection, things like a level or GPS speedometer that use the phone sensor or apps for Bluetooth control of devices [like 0] . Why would something like a bubble level app need internet access for anything besides telemetry or ads? I realize I have way more of these types of apps than the average user, but apps like this aren't a super-niche thing that would be on 0.1% of devices.

I just tend to give Google little benefit of the doubt here, considering where their revenue comes from. Same as when they introduced manifest v3, ostensibly for security but just conveniently happening to neuter adblocking. Disabling access to the internet permission for apps aligns with their profit motive.

>>zrobot+SK
There's plenty of actually problematic stuff Google does (like this change in the article), there's no need to make up whack ass conspiracy theories, too.

>>kllrno+x11
Huh? Not sure how this qualifies as "whack ass". There's an internet permission built in to the OS that Google chose to not expose to the user. The parent poster was claiming there is no reason anyone would want that permission, I then pointed out a whole category of apps that don't need internet to function for anything besides ads and telemetry. All of this is factual info.

So rather than just dismissing the argument via insulting language, can you provide a reasonable alternative explanation for why this setting isn't exposed to the user?