zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
> Google will begin to verify the identities of developers distributing their apps on Android devices, not just those who distribute via the Play Store

This is absolutely unacceptable. That's like you having to submit your personal details to Microsoft in order to just run a program on Windows. Absolutely nuts and it will not go as they think it will.

>>gethly+Ux
Uh, you kind of already do if you don't want to get the scary "unknown publisher" thing, which hides the "yes, I really want to install it" inside the "more info" box. Not even the decency of an "advanced" button.

Installer software signing certificates that will satisfy MS are prohibitively expensive for hobbyists (hundreds per year).

>>Pxtl+TV
While this did funnel countless FOSS and commercial developers to pay MS for certificates, it didn't close even 50% of loopholes. You can still execute third party software from your own (e.g. Steam launching games you install with it). You can also use interpreters, JVM and other ways to disregard the requirement.

If fact, the reason why MS can charge for "nearly mandatory" executable signing is because it is not mandatory at all. If they really were forced to close loopholes, they would have made it free for everyone, — just like Let's Encrypt was made free of charge to establish mandatory encryption across the Web.