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
It's never about security (at least not user's security). It's like you pointed out only about power and locking in customers. They don't care if your phone gets hacked or you bank account drained. They care about the bottom line. Android is fine. Google should have 2 layers if they're worried playstore 1 has only well vetted authors and apps. playstore 2 can be the free for all (mostly) of the current store. These could be two different apps or prominent tags. Choice is good, lock down is bad. Corporate does not like employees or customers to have freedom, that's why it's our duty to fire people like the current US regime who always side with corporations over customers.

>>EasyMa+x31
This is a drastic response, but they didn't make up the security threat. Attackers convincing users to side-load malware is a thing.

https://www.bitdefender.com/en-us/blog/hotforsecurity/hacker...

>>skybri+X51
They made it up in the sense that it's completely unnecessary - most malware is on the Play Store.

>>const_+ul2
What is the source for this extraordinary claim? Also, malware hosted in the play store has the property of being tied to an identity which can be banned.

>>jabedu+CB2
I don't need a source, it's common fucking sense.

1. Most users do not use fdroid or APKs to download software. They download software from the play store.

2. Therefore almost all malware will target the play store.

3. Therefore most malware actively used comes from the play store.

4. Compounded, the play store does almost nothing to prevent malware and actively encourages certain types of malware like spyware and adware.

5. Compounded, Google gets a cut from each piece of malware sold on the play store or advertised on the play store, therefore they have no incentive to prevent malware in any significant way.