zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
If this is a thing then the solution they offer is incorrect. A big giant red screen: “warning the identity of this application developer has not been verified and this could be an application stealing your data, etc” would have worked.

What they want is to get rid of apps like YouTube Vanced that are making them lose money (and other Play Store apps)

>>rvnx+Ig1
"Displaying an angry warning message" is one of the tools we've used for decades, and never with much success.

>>cedill+Ny1
So what's wrong with that? You get warned, you ignore the warning and get hacked, that's on you for being dumb enough to download stuff from some shady website. Plus, Android is supposed to have decent isolation and permission controls, unlike desktop OSs like Windows or Linux (not counting Snap/Flatpak) where software can read your entire disk or any arbitrary file and send it via the internet.

Plus, you are not required to do that, you can just stick to Google Play and trust what Google approves there. But no need to lock down others because of your recklessness.

>>arielc+N22
Is the point of the warning to avoid liability or to actually inform the users? If you tell people everything causes cancer (instead of only saying when you've verified it doesn't), soon enough they're going to stop caring when you say stuff like, "don't eat asbestos, that causes cancer". I think a "checkmark" system makes more sense—for verified accounts/developers, put a checkmark near their name, and for unverified ones, have nothing. There's no reason to cause alarm when 99% of the time the alarm is misfounded.