zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
This is what Apple already does, isn't it? Why wouldn't it work for Google too?

>>sltkr+Tz
Apple requires you to get a developer account with them.

Nowhere does that require you to go and get a DUNS number, which is onerous for a single developer to do without the infrastructure of a company.

>>indror+WB
Yes. You gotta pay your 100 bucks, but I don't remember feeling like my privacy was being invaded when getting a developer account. I assume the best reason they have for this is that they can nuke the account, effectively killing the install base of an app is reported to be malicious. Unless someone tells me why I should, I don't have a huge issue with this.

>>platev+a91
> I assume the best reason they have for this is that they can nuke the account, effectively killing the install base of an app is reported to be malicious.

They can already target malicious apps via Play Protect, including presumably all apps signed by the same signing key, so from that point of view no change would be needed. What this is presumably supposed to achieve is rather making it harder to rotate your signing key after it has been burnt…