7 ms·

Just to put out what Google actually said in their blog post [0]: > We appreciate the community's engagement and have heard the early feedback – specifically f

Just to put out what Google actually said in their blog post [0]: > We appreciate the community's engagement and have heard the early feedback – specifically from students and hobbyists who need an accessible path to learn, and from power users who are more comfortable with security risks. We are making changes to address the needs of both groups. > We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to entry when building apps intended only for a small group, like family or friends. We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. > Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature now and will share more details in the coming months. It is also true that they have not updated their developer documentation site and still assert that developer verification will be "required" in September 2026 [1]. Which might be true by some nonsensical definition of "required" if installing unverified apps requires an "advanced flow", but let's not give too much benefit of the doubt here. 0: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-developer-verification-early.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-de... 1: https://developer.android.com/developer-verification https://developer.android.com/developer-verification

yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
> We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to entry when building apps intended only for a small group, like family or friends. We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. In classic Google fashion, they hear the complaint, pretend that it's about something else, and give a half baked solution to that different problem that was not the actual issue. Any solution that disadvantages F-Droid compared to the less trustworthy Google Play is a problem.
- idiotsecant 8mo ago
  I think you've omitted the next section, which seems more relevant. It seems like they will still allow installs, just hide it behind some scare text. Seems reasonable?
  - Xelbair 8mo ago
    No, because it isn't something that should be up to google's control.
    - tux1968 8mo ago
      Why not? It's their operating system, and they're trying to balance quite a few competing priorities. Scammers are not a threat to dismiss out of hand (i've had family who were victims). For it to be truly considered open source, you should be able to fork it and create your own edits to change the defaults however you wish. Whether that is still a possibility or not, is a completely separate issue from how they proceed with their own fork.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
        > Why not? It's their operating system It's my phone.
        mturilin 8mo ago
        What makes it “yours”? You paid for it but Google still has the control. I understand that you prefers things to be different (as do I) but the reality is that we don’t have control over devices we paid for.
        ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
        > What makes it “yours”? You answered the question here: > You paid for it If you paid for hardware, legally that makes it yours. > Google still has the control Therein lies the problem. Google should not exercise such control over devices which are yours, not theirs.
thewebguyd 8mo ago
> shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. Even that is a step too far in the wrong direction. Doesn't matter if it's free, or whatever, simply requiring an account at all to create and run software on your own device (or make it available to others) is wrong. There exists no freedom when you are required to verify your identity, or even just provide any personal information whatsoever, to a company to run software on your device that you own.
- surajrmal 8mo ago
  The problem with this mentality is that you're not proposing a solution that solves the problem Google and Apple are trying to solve (or are at least stating they are). Rather than just vent about ideals, showing up to the table and listening to the requirements of all stakeholders (even if they differ from yours) will lead to a more productive result. I would not listen to your concerns if you didn't listen to mine.
  - fdsjgfklsfd 8mo ago
    They aren't actually trying to solve any real problem.
    - surajrmal 8mo ago
      Feel free to cite some sources. I have plenty of anecdotes to suggest the problem exists, although I've not looked for data to prove it either way. However if you would like suggest it's not real you should prove it.
  - thewebguyd 8mo ago
    There is no problem to solve, though. “Sideloading” is disabled by default on all new android devices. You have to go through deliberate steps to enable installation from outside sources. End users are ultimately responsible or their own devices and choosing what software to run and not run. That some people can get scammed by someone on the phone walking them through how to enable sideloading, and telling them to ignore all the warnings that currently pop up, is not a problem that Google, Apple, etc. need to solve. It is already solved, via the disabled by default setting and all of the warnings. We don’t need further restrictions on creation and distribution of software. We need end users to step up and educate themselves on how to use and operate technology safely.
cmxch 8mo ago
So basically the Apple model but worse.
sneak 8mo ago
> We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. Perhaps this, when shipped, will pave the way for sane regulation of Apple’s practices along these lines, too.
redbell 8mo ago
For reference, [0] was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45908938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45908938
ForHackernews 8mo ago
Addressed in the OP > We see a battle of PR campaigns and whomever has the last post out remains in the media memory as the truth, and having journalists just copy/paste Google posts serves no one. > But Google said… Said what? That there’s a magical “advanced flow”? Did you see it? Did anyone experience it? When is it scheduled to be released? Was it part of Android 16 QPR2 in December? Of 16 QPR3 Beta 2.1 last week? Of Android 17 Beta 1? No? That’s the issue… As time marches on people were left with the impression that everything was done, fixed, Google “wasn’t evil” after all, this time, yay!
green7ea 8mo ago
> This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. How can they count the number of devices you install the app on without being the ones to give a permission to install it? They took nothing back, they are still putting in place the requirement that Google gives permission to install apps on your phone. They are misleading us about it too which is also terrible.

yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago

> We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to entry when building apps intended only for a small group, like family or friends. We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. In classic Google fashion, they hear the complaint, pretend that it's about something else, and give a half baked solution to that different problem that was not the actual issue. Any solution that disadvantages F-Droid compared to the less trustworthy Google Play is a problem.

idiotsecant 8mo ago
I think you've omitted the next section, which seems more relevant. It seems like they will still allow installs, just hide it behind some scare text. Seems reasonable?
- Xelbair 8mo ago
  No, because it isn't something that should be up to google's control.
  - tux1968 8mo ago
    Why not? It's their operating system, and they're trying to balance quite a few competing priorities. Scammers are not a threat to dismiss out of hand (i've had family who were victims). For it to be truly considered open source, you should be able to fork it and create your own edits to change the defaults however you wish. Whether that is still a possibility or not, is a completely separate issue from how they proceed with their own fork.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
      > Why not? It's their operating system It's my phone.
      - mturilin 8mo ago
        What makes it “yours”? You paid for it but Google still has the control. I understand that you prefers things to be different (as do I) but the reality is that we don’t have control over devices we paid for.
        ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
        > What makes it “yours”? You answered the question here: > You paid for it If you paid for hardware, legally that makes it yours. > Google still has the control Therein lies the problem. Google should not exercise such control over devices which are yours, not theirs.

thewebguyd 8mo ago

> shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. Even that is a step too far in the wrong direction. Doesn't matter if it's free, or whatever, simply requiring an account at all to create and run software on your own device (or make it available to others) is wrong. There exists no freedom when you are required to verify your identity, or even just provide any personal information whatsoever, to a company to run software on your device that you own.

surajrmal 8mo ago
The problem with this mentality is that you're not proposing a solution that solves the problem Google and Apple are trying to solve (or are at least stating they are). Rather than just vent about ideals, showing up to the table and listening to the requirements of all stakeholders (even if they differ from yours) will lead to a more productive result. I would not listen to your concerns if you didn't listen to mine.
- fdsjgfklsfd 8mo ago
  They aren't actually trying to solve any real problem.
  - surajrmal 8mo ago
    Feel free to cite some sources. I have plenty of anecdotes to suggest the problem exists, although I've not looked for data to prove it either way. However if you would like suggest it's not real you should prove it.
- thewebguyd 8mo ago
  There is no problem to solve, though. “Sideloading” is disabled by default on all new android devices. You have to go through deliberate steps to enable installation from outside sources. End users are ultimately responsible or their own devices and choosing what software to run and not run. That some people can get scammed by someone on the phone walking them through how to enable sideloading, and telling them to ignore all the warnings that currently pop up, is not a problem that Google, Apple, etc. need to solve. It is already solved, via the disabled by default setting and all of the warnings. We don’t need further restrictions on creation and distribution of software. We need end users to step up and educate themselves on how to use and operate technology safely.

cmxch 8mo ago

So basically the Apple model but worse.

sneak 8mo ago

> We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. Perhaps this, when shipped, will pave the way for sane regulation of Apple’s practices along these lines, too.

redbell 8mo ago

For reference, [0] was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45908938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45908938

ForHackernews 8mo ago

Addressed in the OP > We see a battle of PR campaigns and whomever has the last post out remains in the media memory as the truth, and having journalists just copy/paste Google posts serves no one. > But Google said… Said what? That there’s a magical “advanced flow”? Did you see it? Did anyone experience it? When is it scheduled to be released? Was it part of Android 16 QPR2 in December? Of 16 QPR3 Beta 2.1 last week? Of Android 17 Beta 1? No? That’s the issue… As time marches on people were left with the impression that everything was done, fixed, Google “wasn’t evil” after all, this time, yay!

green7ea 8mo ago

> This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. How can they count the number of devices you install the app on without being the ones to give a permission to install it? They took nothing back, they are still putting in place the requirement that Google gives permission to install apps on your phone. They are misleading us about it too which is also terrible.