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
> Attackers convincing users to side-load malware is a thing.

Sure. It’s also not Google’s problem.

It’s not Victorinox’s problem of someone uses a Swiss Army knife to cut someone else. It’s not Toyota’s problem if someone deliberately runs over a pedestrian.

>>eadmun+M71
Car companies do care if their cars are easy to break into and will improve the security of newer models, even if any particular theft is not their fault.

If they don't do that then their reputation will suffer and governments might take notice. So, in practice, big companies do have to care about their users, not individually but in aggregate.

>>skybri+U81
> Car companies do care if their cars are easy to break into and will improve the security of newer models, even if any particular theft is not their fault.

Didn't Kia go over a decade without caring or improving until the Kia Boys stuff?

>>rascul+gp1
Yep, it took a while but it eventually caught up with them.