21 ms·

> 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

by gethly 1y ago

> 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.

TZubiri 1y ago
Android is much more secure than windows (its architecture was developed decades later from learned lessons) So yeah, its different and more aecure
cellular 1y ago
Someone create a website to emulate apk!
harikb 1y ago
So long as they don't make it very hard to get an ID approval, I don't see why people shouldn't know who developed an app. Currently the entire ecosystem is riddled with malware, spyware, or adware with shady source information and people have no way to verify the data practices
altairprime 1y ago
Ah, then it would be acceptable if an independent third party who does not share data with Google other than Boolean yes/no was used to do this. I expect that’s their long-term plan anyways, to defuse the predictable backlash and externalize the problem and liabilities altogether, once the initial ID harvesting is done.
- ozim 1y ago
  I think google has incentive to get that data for themselves so they won’t give that up. One of those would be in corrupt countries you don’t have the „trusted 3rd party”
asdff 1y ago
Why would it not go as they think it will? The big guy always wins against the little guy. The fact they make this move suggest they know it is a sure bet.
ikiris 1y ago
You do realize windows already does this right?
- bradford 1y ago
  Can you explain in what way Windows already does this?
  - evanelias 1y ago
    If an executable isn't code-signed, Windows SmartScreen displays a big scary "This file may harm your computer" warning box, requiring multiple clicks to get past. Been like that for years. Code-signing certs used to be very expensive and annoying to obtain. The situation has improved a lot since the launch of Azure Trusted Signing, and now it's roughly on par with the cost and annoyance level of code-signing for Mac binaries.
    - MathMonkeyMan 1y ago
      Big scary box might as well be outright disallowing, since someone who isn't 100% sure about your software will likely be dissuaded by the warning. But if they want to install it, then they can. My understanding of the article is that there is nothing that a user will be able to do to install your software. > “developers [that we approve] will have the same freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through [installation] or to use any app store they prefer.” So, less freedom.
- jjani 1y ago
  Sounds like you haven't used an Android. What Windows does is the exact same as what Android currently does, showing lots of warning screens. Which is very different from banning them altogether.
baby 1y ago
They did it the right way for a very long time and yet people keep buying iPhones, I think I would do the same if I were them, users clearly don't seem to care about openness and freedom to use their devices however they want. I mean, people care about the color of archaic text messages. There is nothing to save.
- pier25 1y ago
  Android has like 70-80% global market share.
  - reissbaker 1y ago
    And none of that (sadly) is about openness. It's about price. The iOS share of mobile spending is basically the inverse: ~70% iOS, ~30% Android.
    - orbisvicis 1y ago
      Spending on hardware, or spending on in-app purchases?
      - worthless-trash 1y ago
        Neither, they are talking about 'the ratio of people buying apps'.
  - jaza 1y ago
    iOS market share: 56% in Australia (where I live) [1]; 58% in United States [2]; 47% in UK [3]; 64% in Japan [4]; 60% in Canada [5]; 55% in Denmark [6]; 54% in Switzerland [7]; 55% in Sweden [8]. Yes, I've cherry picked from the minority of countries with near or over half iOS market share. But, they're all high GDP countries with a very valuable customer base. Apple and Google care about these markets, they don't care about global market share. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/australia https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/australia [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta... [3] https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-kingdom https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united... [4] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/japan https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/japan [5] https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/canada https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/canada [6] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/denmark https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/denmark [7] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/switzerland https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/switzerlan... [8] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/sweden https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/sweden
globalnode 1y ago
wont it just open the door for alternatives? linux on pc and ??? on mobile?
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  Microsoft is trillionaire company and still failed to do that lets that sink it on how hard to make ecosystem
akst 1y ago
Ultimately it’s them that has market power. To meaningfully challenge it, developers need to agree to withheld supply like a cartel (illegal?) or union. I think it’s probably close to the union scenario in an industry with a single employer, as there is that one too many relationship (all developers vs Google). Whereas a cartel is a few suppliers conspiring against all consumers. I’m not sure developers would go to those lengths, and I’m not sure it would work either as the benefit is too high from defecting from such a coalition.
- alexvitkov 1y ago
  It's not illegal to not release your software on a platform. But the mobile market is so top-heavy on both the apps and the games side, that without a few key developers - Meta, ByteDance, Tencent, etc your union is dead in the water - and the top 1% of developers would very much like to more friction for new developers, not less.
  - akst 1y ago
    If Apple or Google convinced a court you formed a cartel then that's the end of the story. Whether it's a cartel in the eyes in the public would be irrelevant.
teleforce 1y ago
>Absolutely nuts and it will not go as they think it will. Apple will disagree and the first company doing worst than this, and is the world's first trillion dollars company. Money talks.
al_borland 1y ago
> will not go as they think it will. How will it go? Where are people going to go? People who draw a hard line on this can’t go to iOS for more freedom. Linux phones aren’t ready for prime time. So what’s left? Going back to a flip phone that doesn’t even have the capability of running apps in the same class?
- creatonez 1y ago
  Aside from the prospect of bad press and user protest - There are still non Play Protect certified Android phones being released, including a few rare phones that skip the Play Store altogether (including the Fire phones). So they could lose at least a little bit of ground in this area. In a sense, they are in competition with their open source offering, even though they have a lot of control over it these days. It could also make jailbreaking more commonplace, which on the Android side has died down in recent years because sideloading is enough for most users.
  - al_borland 1y ago
    What is the killer app people are sideloading these days? For people to get onboard they need to feel like they are really missing out on something they find valuable. iOS doesn't have sideloading (outside of some TestFlight loopholes), and I don't see anyone is real life talking about it. It's just activists for this kind of thing online. I don't think the average user feels like they are really missing anything, which makes it a hard sell.
    - cft 1y ago
      I am not the average user, but my key apps are ReVanced, Termux, OsmAnd. All sideloaded. I am on a Pixel 9XL. I definitely fly less now, because I am tired of the Orwellian circus at the airports. I guess same mechanism will reduce my smartphone use
      - al_borland 1y ago
        Why is OsmAnd sideloaded? When I visit the website it shows it in the App Store and Play Store.
faangguyindia 1y ago
Doesn't macOs also requires this when you use stuff like keychain in apps? I remember signing my flutter macOS app with my info using xcode.
Pxtl 1y ago
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).
- altfredd 1y ago
  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.
nine_k 1y ago
Isn't it basically the same requirement as Apple enforces for iOS? If you want to build an iOS app which other users can install, you must register (and pay). It's a step of questionable utility, and I suspect it comes from requirements of (not exactly freedom-loving) governments of Brazil, Malaysia, and Singapore, where the demand for registration will be enforced first. Maybe it will even remain geographically limited. The article is very light on details. Crucially, it lacks any links to actual Google documents.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  > Isn't it basically the same requirement as Apple enforces for iOS? Yes, which is why it's bad.
abullinan 1y ago
[flagged]
- rpdillon 1y ago
  > Come on. Go back to a flip phone, or make your own smartphone ecosystem. The entitlement is outrageous. This response is unreasonable. If I'm purchasing a piece of hardware, it's not outrageous that I want to be able to compile and run software on it without asking for permission. Suggesting that I instead create my own smartphone ecosystem is absurd.
  - abullinan 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - msgodel 1y ago
      What? How does it being later in time justify OS vendors shipping malware?
    - protocolture 1y ago
      >1970 to 2010 These were also years in the real world. >it’s the one you chose by giving up your autonomy. You are advocating for giving up autonomy. The people you are replying to are advocating the opposite. >Don’t like it? Don’t by the phone. Genz mentality- Oblig OK Boomer. "Dont you dare complain about big corporation, just uh go without, or buy a dumb phone, or just run all your calls through some Cellular enabled raspberry pi" Why would you defend some massive corporation crushing freedom. Shouldnt you at least beg google for some money. >You could force Droid to reverse policy by not using it, but you’ll bend the knee and whine because you need your TikTok. Spoken like someone who has already bent the knee, and is somehow critically damaged by people discussing methods to avoid bending the knee.
- gumby271 1y ago
  Just build your own smartphone empire lol
hedora 1y ago
Their comparison to airport security is apt. The US considers airports “constitution free zones”, and apparently they think the same of phones now too. Cutting through the excuses, this is just another step in converting the US from a democracy to a fascist dictatorship. Want to write software? Papers please.
- rpdillon 1y ago
  Yeah, it's like we've given up. Between third-party doctrine, border enforcement being excluded from 4th amendment protections, and 100-mile zones around international airports being considered "the border", it's like there's no place left where the constitution applies. How did we forget why we made these rules in the first place? It's not like the risks are smaller today than they were 250 years ago...
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    I'm not sure it's so much that we forgot why we made them, it's that we forgot we need to maintain and enforce them and they won't somehow automatically prevent oppression just by being written down on a piece of paper in the national archives.
- staplers 1y ago
  The US considers airports “constitution free zones” And the rest of the country as well now. The highest authority is threatening municipalities with military takeover. Corporations are reading the room and pulling out any hostile tactic they've kept in their back pocket waiting for an occasion like this. This is only the beginning with digital IDs. It's absolutely going to get worse and all of human history is available as evidence to what occurs with unchecked power.
  - oneshtein 1y ago
    USA was a democratic country just less than a year ago. Are there constitutional ways to remove a bad actor or a traitor from the power? It looks like pattern there is that a some powerful guy or company just removes rights and freedoms we had by small pieces. Those small pieces are not worth to fight for, until frog is boiled alive.
jeroenhd 1y ago
The nice thing about Windows is that you don't have to. You will need to pay a couple hundred dollars for a certificate and have the first couple hundred people who open your signed executable click through your warnings though. Yes, you can turn off smartscreen (for now) but opening random executables is getting harder and harder.
PeterStuer 1y ago
With the latest W11 updates, how far are we away from that?
- Culonavirus 1y ago
  I mean if you want to avoid smartscreen BS you already need to sign your Windows executables with EV code signing cert that is not cheap and issued only to registered businesses sooo...
IshKebab 1y ago
Microsoft will do this. They just have to go a little more slowly than Google or Apple because there's such a long history and expectation of being able to run any apps. But they're gradually working their way there just like Google and Apple. Starts with scary warnings for unsigned apps (with a workaround), then they start imposing extra restrictions for unsigned apps, and then they make the SmartScreen workaround more difficult to enable (maybe it needs a registry edit), then they'll remove that workaround in certain markets/editions (maybe the Home version first). Finally they'll remove it everywhere.
- skeezyboy 1y ago
  >But they're gradually working their way there just like Google and Apple. imagine microsoft having the moral high ground for once
  - noisy_boy 1y ago
    More like baggage that is slowing them down despite their noble intentions.
  - IshKebab 1y ago
    They don't have higher moral ground, just more constraints.

by gethly 1y ago

TZubiri 1y ago

Android is much more secure than windows (its architecture was developed decades later from learned lessons) So yeah, its different and more aecure

cellular 1y ago

Someone create a website to emulate apk!

harikb 1y ago

So long as they don't make it very hard to get an ID approval, I don't see why people shouldn't know who developed an app. Currently the entire ecosystem is riddled with malware, spyware, or adware with shady source information and people have no way to verify the data practices

altairprime 1y ago

Ah, then it would be acceptable if an independent third party who does not share data with Google other than Boolean yes/no was used to do this. I expect that’s their long-term plan anyways, to defuse the predictable backlash and externalize the problem and liabilities altogether, once the initial ID harvesting is done.

ozim 1y ago
I think google has incentive to get that data for themselves so they won’t give that up. One of those would be in corrupt countries you don’t have the „trusted 3rd party”

asdff 1y ago

Why would it not go as they think it will? The big guy always wins against the little guy. The fact they make this move suggest they know it is a sure bet.

ikiris 1y ago

You do realize windows already does this right?

bradford 1y ago
Can you explain in what way Windows already does this?
- evanelias 1y ago
  If an executable isn't code-signed, Windows SmartScreen displays a big scary "This file may harm your computer" warning box, requiring multiple clicks to get past. Been like that for years. Code-signing certs used to be very expensive and annoying to obtain. The situation has improved a lot since the launch of Azure Trusted Signing, and now it's roughly on par with the cost and annoyance level of code-signing for Mac binaries.
  - MathMonkeyMan 1y ago
    Big scary box might as well be outright disallowing, since someone who isn't 100% sure about your software will likely be dissuaded by the warning. But if they want to install it, then they can. My understanding of the article is that there is nothing that a user will be able to do to install your software. > “developers [that we approve] will have the same freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through [installation] or to use any app store they prefer.” So, less freedom.
jjani 1y ago
Sounds like you haven't used an Android. What Windows does is the exact same as what Android currently does, showing lots of warning screens. Which is very different from banning them altogether.

baby 1y ago

They did it the right way for a very long time and yet people keep buying iPhones, I think I would do the same if I were them, users clearly don't seem to care about openness and freedom to use their devices however they want. I mean, people care about the color of archaic text messages. There is nothing to save.

pier25 1y ago
Android has like 70-80% global market share.
- reissbaker 1y ago
  And none of that (sadly) is about openness. It's about price. The iOS share of mobile spending is basically the inverse: ~70% iOS, ~30% Android.
  - orbisvicis 1y ago
    Spending on hardware, or spending on in-app purchases?
    - worthless-trash 1y ago
      Neither, they are talking about 'the ratio of people buying apps'.
- jaza 1y ago
  iOS market share: 56% in Australia (where I live) [1]; 58% in United States [2]; 47% in UK [3]; 64% in Japan [4]; 60% in Canada [5]; 55% in Denmark [6]; 54% in Switzerland [7]; 55% in Sweden [8]. Yes, I've cherry picked from the minority of countries with near or over half iOS market share. But, they're all high GDP countries with a very valuable customer base. Apple and Google care about these markets, they don't care about global market share. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/australia https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/australia [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta... [3] https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-kingdom https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united... [4] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/japan https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/japan [5] https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/canada https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/canada [6] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/denmark https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/denmark [7] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/switzerland https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/switzerlan... [8] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/sweden https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/sweden

globalnode 1y ago

wont it just open the door for alternatives? linux on pc and ??? on mobile?

tonyhart7 1y ago
Microsoft is trillionaire company and still failed to do that lets that sink it on how hard to make ecosystem

akst 1y ago

Ultimately it’s them that has market power. To meaningfully challenge it, developers need to agree to withheld supply like a cartel (illegal?) or union. I think it’s probably close to the union scenario in an industry with a single employer, as there is that one too many relationship (all developers vs Google). Whereas a cartel is a few suppliers conspiring against all consumers. I’m not sure developers would go to those lengths, and I’m not sure it would work either as the benefit is too high from defecting from such a coalition.

alexvitkov 1y ago
It's not illegal to not release your software on a platform. But the mobile market is so top-heavy on both the apps and the games side, that without a few key developers - Meta, ByteDance, Tencent, etc your union is dead in the water - and the top 1% of developers would very much like to more friction for new developers, not less.
- akst 1y ago
  If Apple or Google convinced a court you formed a cartel then that's the end of the story. Whether it's a cartel in the eyes in the public would be irrelevant.

teleforce 1y ago

>Absolutely nuts and it will not go as they think it will. Apple will disagree and the first company doing worst than this, and is the world's first trillion dollars company. Money talks.

al_borland 1y ago

> will not go as they think it will. How will it go? Where are people going to go? People who draw a hard line on this can’t go to iOS for more freedom. Linux phones aren’t ready for prime time. So what’s left? Going back to a flip phone that doesn’t even have the capability of running apps in the same class?

creatonez 1y ago
Aside from the prospect of bad press and user protest - There are still non Play Protect certified Android phones being released, including a few rare phones that skip the Play Store altogether (including the Fire phones). So they could lose at least a little bit of ground in this area. In a sense, they are in competition with their open source offering, even though they have a lot of control over it these days. It could also make jailbreaking more commonplace, which on the Android side has died down in recent years because sideloading is enough for most users.
- al_borland 1y ago
  What is the killer app people are sideloading these days? For people to get onboard they need to feel like they are really missing out on something they find valuable. iOS doesn't have sideloading (outside of some TestFlight loopholes), and I don't see anyone is real life talking about it. It's just activists for this kind of thing online. I don't think the average user feels like they are really missing anything, which makes it a hard sell.
  - cft 1y ago
    I am not the average user, but my key apps are ReVanced, Termux, OsmAnd. All sideloaded. I am on a Pixel 9XL. I definitely fly less now, because I am tired of the Orwellian circus at the airports. I guess same mechanism will reduce my smartphone use
    - al_borland 1y ago
      Why is OsmAnd sideloaded? When I visit the website it shows it in the App Store and Play Store.

faangguyindia 1y ago

Doesn't macOs also requires this when you use stuff like keychain in apps? I remember signing my flutter macOS app with my info using xcode.

Pxtl 1y ago

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).

altfredd 1y ago
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.

nine_k 1y ago

Isn't it basically the same requirement as Apple enforces for iOS? If you want to build an iOS app which other users can install, you must register (and pay). It's a step of questionable utility, and I suspect it comes from requirements of (not exactly freedom-loving) governments of Brazil, Malaysia, and Singapore, where the demand for registration will be enforced first. Maybe it will even remain geographically limited. The article is very light on details. Crucially, it lacks any links to actual Google documents.

BrenBarn 1y ago
> Isn't it basically the same requirement as Apple enforces for iOS? Yes, which is why it's bad.

abullinan 1y ago

[flagged]

rpdillon 1y ago
> Come on. Go back to a flip phone, or make your own smartphone ecosystem. The entitlement is outrageous. This response is unreasonable. If I'm purchasing a piece of hardware, it's not outrageous that I want to be able to compile and run software on it without asking for permission. Suggesting that I instead create my own smartphone ecosystem is absurd.
- abullinan 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - msgodel 1y ago
    What? How does it being later in time justify OS vendors shipping malware?
  - protocolture 1y ago
    >1970 to 2010 These were also years in the real world. >it’s the one you chose by giving up your autonomy. You are advocating for giving up autonomy. The people you are replying to are advocating the opposite. >Don’t like it? Don’t by the phone. Genz mentality- Oblig OK Boomer. "Dont you dare complain about big corporation, just uh go without, or buy a dumb phone, or just run all your calls through some Cellular enabled raspberry pi" Why would you defend some massive corporation crushing freedom. Shouldnt you at least beg google for some money. >You could force Droid to reverse policy by not using it, but you’ll bend the knee and whine because you need your TikTok. Spoken like someone who has already bent the knee, and is somehow critically damaged by people discussing methods to avoid bending the knee.
gumby271 1y ago
Just build your own smartphone empire lol

hedora 1y ago

Their comparison to airport security is apt. The US considers airports “constitution free zones”, and apparently they think the same of phones now too. Cutting through the excuses, this is just another step in converting the US from a democracy to a fascist dictatorship. Want to write software? Papers please.

rpdillon 1y ago
Yeah, it's like we've given up. Between third-party doctrine, border enforcement being excluded from 4th amendment protections, and 100-mile zones around international airports being considered "the border", it's like there's no place left where the constitution applies. How did we forget why we made these rules in the first place? It's not like the risks are smaller today than they were 250 years ago...
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  I'm not sure it's so much that we forgot why we made them, it's that we forgot we need to maintain and enforce them and they won't somehow automatically prevent oppression just by being written down on a piece of paper in the national archives.
staplers 1y ago
The US considers airports “constitution free zones” And the rest of the country as well now. The highest authority is threatening municipalities with military takeover. Corporations are reading the room and pulling out any hostile tactic they've kept in their back pocket waiting for an occasion like this. This is only the beginning with digital IDs. It's absolutely going to get worse and all of human history is available as evidence to what occurs with unchecked power.
- oneshtein 1y ago
  USA was a democratic country just less than a year ago. Are there constitutional ways to remove a bad actor or a traitor from the power? It looks like pattern there is that a some powerful guy or company just removes rights and freedoms we had by small pieces. Those small pieces are not worth to fight for, until frog is boiled alive.

jeroenhd 1y ago

The nice thing about Windows is that you don't have to. You will need to pay a couple hundred dollars for a certificate and have the first couple hundred people who open your signed executable click through your warnings though. Yes, you can turn off smartscreen (for now) but opening random executables is getting harder and harder.

PeterStuer 1y ago

With the latest W11 updates, how far are we away from that?

Culonavirus 1y ago
I mean if you want to avoid smartscreen BS you already need to sign your Windows executables with EV code signing cert that is not cheap and issued only to registered businesses sooo...

IshKebab 1y ago

Microsoft will do this. They just have to go a little more slowly than Google or Apple because there's such a long history and expectation of being able to run any apps. But they're gradually working their way there just like Google and Apple. Starts with scary warnings for unsigned apps (with a workaround), then they start imposing extra restrictions for unsigned apps, and then they make the SmartScreen workaround more difficult to enable (maybe it needs a registry edit), then they'll remove that workaround in certain markets/editions (maybe the Home version first). Finally they'll remove it everywhere.

skeezyboy 1y ago
>But they're gradually working their way there just like Google and Apple. imagine microsoft having the moral high ground for once
- noisy_boy 1y ago
  More like baggage that is slowing them down despite their noble intentions.
- IshKebab 1y ago
  They don't have higher moral ground, just more constraints.