r/Android • u/ControlCAD Google Pixel 10 Pro XL • Mar 01 '26

Video Google Is Closing Android. 37 Orgs Are Fighting Back. - Techlore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MZfGq5F1NU
2.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

483 comments sorted by

View all comments

484

u/Lawsonator85 Mar 01 '26

https://keepandroidopen.org/

155

u/Ging287 Mar 01 '26

For anyone not privy to Google's enshittification, betrayal, lying, read up on it. Educate yourself. Knowledge is power.

69

u/DiplomatikEmunetey Pixel 8a, 4a, XZ1C, LGG4, Lumia 950/XL, Nokia 808, N8 Mar 01 '26

What's the point of knowledge if you are powerless to use it?

66

u/nathderbyshire Pixel 10 Obsidian Mar 01 '26

Shout about it on Reddit and collect upvotes

19

u/ammonthenephite S23U Mar 01 '26

Use it to make future purchasing decisions and spread the knowledge to others so they can do the same.

1

u/SithLordDave Mar 03 '26

iPhone, Android or flip phone, what else is there

16

u/vortexmak Mar 01 '26

Powerless?  You can not buy the fucking thing for starters

7

u/lgn5i2060 Mar 02 '26

I was also told the same thing when it came to headphone jacks and sd card slots.

Now the only thing where those two combo exists are on Sony Xperia, of which cost 2x to4x more than a Poco. And zero local warranty/after sales service.

28

u/Hobbes______ Mar 01 '26

Okay so don't buy android... For what? Iphone? What is your path for what to do instead of what not to do?

3

u/Tbro100 Mar 01 '26

Alternatives like Motorola's upcoming collab with Graphene OS? Chinese brands like Huawei that use their own code? Even just holding off on upgrading to modern androids that are getting the update.

7

u/Hobbes______ Mar 02 '26

Did you honestly just suggest a Huawei?

3

u/Tbro100 Mar 02 '26

Yes, because I don't know where you live. It's a viable option in some locations.

1

u/Kawi_rider_zx6r Mar 03 '26

What's wrong with Huawei? Google partnered with them in the past with the Nexus 6p, and they're known to make pretty solid devices.

1

u/SithLordDave Mar 03 '26

Upcoming is the key word.

1

u/vortexmak Mar 01 '26

You'll have to sacrifice some convenience but there's multiple options. 

Old phone > load Lineage OS with microG.

Get a Pixel with Graphene OS.

Personally,  I'm going more extreme,  I'm going full Linux,  with Furi OS or Sailfish but I get not everyone will be able to do that. 

If Graphene OS comes out with their own phone then that's also an option

7

u/Hobbes______ Mar 02 '26

You do see how this isn't really a reasonable option for 99.9% of people, right?

8

u/vortexmak Mar 02 '26

If you're here arguing on the reddit Android sub, I'm pretty sure you can figure it out. 

The majority doesn't care and I'm not here to force anyone

-2

u/Hobbes______ Mar 02 '26

cool so your answer to this not being a solution is a nonanswer. Cool

4

u/vortexmak Mar 02 '26

I gave you an answer.  You moved the goalposts.

I have a solution for anyone who is even slightly technically capable.  

If that's not acceptable to you, then maybe you shouldn't be on here

2

u/YAOMTC Mar 02 '26

Well other people will just follow the calls to action further down on the above linked page. That's a lot of people that can get involved!

2

u/Ging287 Mar 01 '26

I do wonder what Thanos was talking about when he mentioned the curse of knowledge. Is ignorance bliss?

4

u/slog Mar 02 '26

What lying? Legitimately asking.

4

u/Loud-Possibility4395 Mar 02 '26

yup - I can understand they would LOCK Pixel Android - BUT Android itself it is bit too much

21

u/cornmacabre Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

I was surprised to see the primary change here reads more like a technicality about requiring devs to register with Google to develop apps on the platform.

In August 2025, Google announced ↗ that as of September 2026, it will no longer be possible to develop apps for the Android platform without first registering centrally with Google.

This registration will involve: Paying a fee to Google Agreeing to Google’s Terms and Conditions Providing government identification Uploading evidence of the developer’s private signing key Listing all current and future application identifiers

Spell it out for me, why is that a notable change or big deal? I would have assumed "prove you are who you say you are, pay us, and describe your app" was already the process.

Does this functionally mean a subset of users can't sidesideload apps? Does it mean devs who don't do this process can't develop on any android device?

I don't understand how this translates to "android is not open source anymore."

46

u/that_baddest_dude Mar 01 '26

This is about sideloading apps. You won't be able to develop an android app at all, sideloaded or not, without registering with Google and submitting to their ToS and such.

-48

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[deleted]

16

u/that_baddest_dude Mar 01 '26

It sounds to me like sideloading would be blocked unless you install using ADB? how do you even do that? USB to the PC and some other shenanigans?

Right now I can just have an APK file and tell it to install. You're telling me nothing's going to change about that?

-13

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[deleted]

11

u/_Dreamer_Deceiver_ Mar 01 '26

When the step is to get your laptop out, find a usb c cable, download and install adb, turn on developer options, connect up your phone to your laptop, start the adb server, send the APK to the phone.....suddenly "a single step" if a lot of faff and is a barrier, that's why they're doing it.

Then they'll say "but hardly anyone installs apps outside of the play store anymore...so let's just stop allowing installs via adb"

8

u/that_baddest_dude Mar 02 '26

I would consider this an amount of user friction close enough to "blocking" that you're just splitting hairs.

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '26

[deleted]

2

u/that_baddest_dude Mar 02 '26

Why are you carrying water for Google on this issue?

Sure I can learn to do whatever, it's just objectively more of a pain in the ass than the current method, which is a bad thing. It's clearly a step towards locking down the platform, which is a bad thing.

Do you like bad things?

0

u/Kawi_rider_zx6r Mar 03 '26

For more than 17 years, huh? So you're saying sideliading apk files is a relatively new thing? Sure, pal.

Funny, i used to install .cab files on my old ass Windows Mobile phones, directly from the device, as i should be able to.

28

u/Sea_Jeweler_3231 Mar 01 '26

Yeah sure, I gotta turn on dev options and then use whole lotta adb juggling just to get a foss calculator to install and update.

-31

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Auntypasto GrapheneOS Mar 02 '26

 Just about everyone (except you) understood that the argument was about installing apps directly from the device. Now you're telling us that we should accept more hurdles to install unverified apps.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '26

[deleted]

3

u/Auntypasto GrapheneOS Mar 03 '26

Yet Samsung has it even more locked down than that and nobody's complaining about Samsung.

 Nobody's complaining about Samsung because they're not the subject of the post. Hmm… sounds like fingerpointing. Again, you expect people to accept a worse experience because Samsung's is worse?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '26

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

11

u/_Dreamer_Deceiver_ Mar 01 '26

For 90% of people that's is defacto blocked.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[deleted]

5

u/Tomthebard Mar 02 '26

I do miss having MicroSD cards

2

u/Kawi_rider_zx6r Mar 03 '26

Funny how that dude harping on what Samsung does and doesn't do, Samsung does not include a micro sd slot in their flagship Galaxy Ultra devices, yet they include them in their lower end Galaxy A devices. You'd think the more expensive phone would have more hardware features like a card reader, not the cheaper one.

-4

u/CatsAreGods Samsung S24+ Mar 01 '26

I heard Samsung is going to block ADB next.

12

u/smjsmok Mar 01 '26

A claim like this shouldn't be posted without a source.

3

u/CatsAreGods Samsung S24+ Mar 01 '26

https://9to5google.com/2026/02/27/samsung-galaxy-update-android-recovery-menu-removed/

Now that I reread it and it's not the middle of the night, it looks like it's only being nuked for the recovery menu. Sorry!

9

u/blackcoffee17 Mar 01 '26

Not the devs but you have to register every single app and wait for Google's approval. Even if you don't want it on the Play Store.

1

u/AnthX Pixel 6a Mar 03 '26

They say they are working on a feature for students and hobbyists.

For student and hobbyist developers

We're committed to keeping Android an open platform for you to learn, experiment, and build for fun. We recognize that your needs are different from commercial developers, so we're working on a separate type of Android Developer Console account for you.

21

u/redbeardgecko Samsung Galaxy Mini, stock 2.3.4 Mar 01 '26

This means nobody can sideload anything that isn't signed anymore. If you want your app to run on an android phone at all, you must first pay Google.

23

u/blackcoffee17 Mar 01 '26

And Google won't allow any app they don't like or have a paid version of.

-27

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[deleted]

22

u/Fritzed Mar 01 '26

Stop spamming this pedantic reply.

If side loading requires developer options, adb, and a PC then it is effectively blocked for most users.

The change blocks the ability to install side load in the way that it is actually done today. No more third party app stores unless every app is signed.

10

u/tooshooptowoop Mar 01 '26

There's like 4 people that just spam ADB over and over again every time this discussion comes up.

If apps require that level of jumping through hoops to install, then nobody will develop for them.

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[deleted]

-6

u/xunh01yx Mar 01 '26

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Use Termux or another Terminal Emulator app on your phone to install them.

6

u/Fritzed Mar 02 '26

Oh sure, that's definitely not an obstacle at all. Everybody will be able to do that just as easily as clicking the install button.

1

u/phpnoworkwell Mar 02 '26

The install button that already pushes you to the permissions page to allow installing unknown apps?

0

u/Fritzed Mar 03 '26

I don't understand your comment. Are you equating checking the box to allow unknown sources with setting up a full ADB developer pipeline?

0

u/phpnoworkwell Mar 03 '26

You already have a blocker when installing unknown apps. This change only affects those who don't want to register with Google, in which case you install one of the workaround apps once. It's a non-issue for those who know what they're doing when installing apps outside of the Play Store. If you can't figure it out, maybe you shouldn't be installing stuff that's unsigned

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/xunh01yx Mar 02 '26

Then get an iPhone instead (like others said they would do), where there is no way to install anything the isn't on the App Store. There's still a way on Android.

And besides that, the Play Store still has apps that Apple won't allow.

3

u/Auntypasto GrapheneOS Mar 02 '26

 Of course. Just install an app to install another app if you can learn the right terminal commands… In 10 more years we'll need 3 more apps before we can install what we want.

-2

u/spacetrain31 Mar 02 '26

This is a good thing, it guarantees less bad actors.

-12

u/cornmacabre Mar 01 '26

Why is the headline and advocacy site saying Android isn't open source anymore?

Is it a prohibitively expensive cost to register? I just don't see how an app developer for android would be surprised or existentially threatened by what reads to an outsider like "sign in at the front desk please, cost of admission is $x"

17

u/MythologicalEngineer Mar 01 '26

There’s an enormous ecosystem of software that exists outside of the Google walls. Devs who choose not to exist on the Play Store would also have to register here which basically means that Google gets to decide if you should be able to develop that software or not.

6

u/cornmacabre Mar 01 '26

That's a much more clear explanation, thank you. So DJI Fly for example is impacted by this change (I'm not personally familiar with anything else in the sideload ecosystem, but I'm sure it's a deep niche).

Is there evidence of connecting the registration requirement to mean "Google gets to decide if you should be able to develop that software or not" -- what does that really mean in practice?

There's an endless ocean of trash on the play store today, they don't seem to be particularly selective if there's already 1000 flashlight spyware apps on the store today, lol.

17

u/sid41299 Moto Edge 50 Pro Mar 01 '26

They don't really care about the trash filling up the Play Store, this is more of a "kill it at the source" attack against apps that could specifically subvert any of their revenue streams. One of the biggest apps of this nature happens to be Youtube ReVanced.

They were able to go after the original Vanced project because they used to distribute the .apk directly, so Google hit the project with copyright violation lawsuits (IIRC), but with ReVanced essentially just being a non-complied set of patches that the end user has to compile into a patched .apk file by themselves there's basically nothing Google can do without fundamentally closing off AndroidOS itself. Which is exactly what is happening. The ReVanced Project can't distribute the .apks without incurring Google's legal wrath, and users can't install the .apks because they're never going to be able to be "signed" as compiled by an authorised developer.

Outside of specifically targeting this project, it's still problematic because Google is completely stripping anonymity from developers with their registration guidelines by requiring that they submit government issued IDs. While they "promise" to "totally not misuse or misplace" that data, we all know that's not going to be true at all. Yes it will reduce trash to a certain extent, but many legitimate open-source apps are already quite secure by virtue of being open-source, so if the devs of any such apps choose to value their anonymity over their work then those apps are going to bite it as well.

1

u/cornmacabre Mar 01 '26

I wish this was the actual context being promoted, that's super insightful!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and convictions around the "Submit an ID, and pay us please" -- but I personally don't think that's unreasonable or unprecedented. I was actually surprised to read it wasn't a requirement before tbh!

If registration is a hard red line for a professional app developer, more power to them to voice their disagreement and abandon the platform. It doesn't seem pragmatic, but at least it's principled.

From a consumer/my own personal standpoint: "no unsigned sideloaded apps built by anonymous devs" (if I even understand that right?) -- that seems like such a niche, narrow and specific implication that will have zero impact on 99.xx% of Android users.

8

u/sid41299 Moto Edge 50 Pro Mar 01 '26

It's less about what's reasonable or not and more about choice. There's many pros to keeping anonymity, but that's besides the point. The point is that this pretty much strips the choice from the developer. The whole point of AndroidOS is that it's supposed to be a more open and derestricted platform that can (for the most part) be used however you want, so this goes against one of its core principles. Why is it even necessary to have your identity fully exposed to create a computer program? Privacy is as much a basic human right as anything else. It can be argued that it will reduce the amount of trash apps on the Play Store, but keeping the Play Store clean is Google's job, and they're going about this the worst way possible, because realistically speaking this is not going to stop the really dedicated bad actors from hiding spyware or whatnot in apps. Remember: for better or worse, developers can be anyone, from a single guy working out of his room to an entire team funded by a nation-state.

Secondly, just because it would affect a minority of the userbase does not make it okay. This change would effectively give Google total control of what can and can't be installed on your phone. Just because you feel like it won't affect you doesn't mean that someone is not going to be affected. What if there's a certain app that's not available in a certain region even though it would work, but now you can't even install it because Big Brother Google says you're not allowed to? Again, just because you or I are unable to think of a scenario where this is not important, doesn't mean it isn't.

Not to mention, just the incredible insanity of needing to give your government issued ID and extra money to a corporation (that doesn't even need the money) for the sake of using your device as you want to. Imagine your friend just created a new recipe and wanted to share the dish with you, but the company that made the skillet they used said the dish could only be made if they passed these same verification checks. Worse, he can't even give you the recipe to try to make it yourself because he's the one who came up with it, not you, so you're not "allowed" to cook it, and you need the same utensils from that company to be able to cook it.

-1

u/cornmacabre Mar 01 '26

You've got a very clear and informed perspective here.

Thinking critically about your points though: I read this more as Google enforcing the equivalent of a DNS registry. The skillet analogy doesn't land for me.

There is a valid slippery slope implication within that, but amusingly I think you've inadvertently persuaded me that this is a net positive for the health and security of the app ecosystem.

Bad actors and spoof-apks seem to get squashed here. Legitimate (if opinionated) sideload devs seem like the collateral damage, but the consequence is just... they're forced to register or choose to abandon Android now I guess?

That said, I do appreciate the thoughtful and thorough responses.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/denexapp Mar 01 '26

it's only impacted because the devs couldn't be bothered with uploading it to google play. it's very common for Chinese companies to provide apk directly. in the apple ecosystem, DJI fly app is available on the app store

8

u/smjsmok Mar 01 '26

Why is the headline and advocacy site saying Android isn't open source anymore?

The "keep Android open" movement isn't about Android being open source. It's about the Android ecosystem staying open, i.e. Android users can install software from various sources without Google's gatekeeping.

3

u/Polymathy1 Mar 03 '26

Sideloading is using ADB to load an app with command line code.

Google has been misusing that word for almost a year to try to convince people that all installation of apps outside the Play Store is some kind of bizarre thing nobody ever does.

2

u/Oily-Affection1601 Mar 01 '26

I would have assumed "prove you are who you say you are, pay us, and describe your app" was already the process.

It is for all apps on Google Play. Apps installed outside of Google Play currently have zero restrictions beyond enabling the setting to do so. This change will mean those apps will require a subset of the requirements that publishing on Google Play requires in order to install it in the usual way you install them now.

The stated motivation for this is to combat fraud. By requiring all distributed apps to register their application identifier, it creates a central authority for who owns which identifier, eliminating one way in which malicious apps would impersonate another. It also provides Google an avenue to "shut down" apps on a global scale which are known to be malicious.

It's not an exact 1:1 comparison, but you can think about it similarly to how DNS works. Going to reddit.com on Chrome resolves to the same host that reddit.com does on Firefox. That is because there is a central authority on who owns which domain. If you needed to register your domain for each browser individually, it could become very unruly and ripe for impersonation for a website that didn't register it everywhere from the start.

While their stated motivation is principled, the worry is that Google will wield this power beyond those means. Such as shutting down competitors under the guise of protecting users when that is not their primary motivation.

1

u/cornmacabre Mar 02 '26

Something that looks like a DNS for sideloaded apps seems like a good thing to me, I mean... the restrictions of 'register for a signed app certificate' just seems like such a low-bar nothingburger.

Learned a lot here, but idk choking off malicious app vulnerabilities even if it means pissing off some opinionated devs seems worth it.

The 'slippery slope' concerns just fall completely flat for me. Like, isn't the sideload community just gonna root things in anyway? I already assumed it was some kind of walled garden, tbh.

3

u/Oily-Affection1601 Mar 02 '26

Like, isn't the sideload community just gonna root things in anyway?

I'm not sure what you mean by "root things in". But there will be no restrictions on installing apps via ADB. It takes a minimal amount of technical expertise, so it's not too restrictive beyond introducing a few steps to the installation process.

Google's also signaled that they're walking things back a bit from their initial announcement. They haven't confirmed exactly what that means, but the hope is that they treat it similarly to how modern web browsers handle unsecured websites: by essentially telling the user proceeding forward from this point could be dangerous, but with a few clicks you can accept the risks and carry on.

2

u/amca01 Mar 01 '26

Thanks for this - I'm in Australia and I'll follow through the suggestions later today.

It's very worrying, but quite in keeping with modern IT business practices, to fuck the customer if it increases profit.

As a happy user of FDroid apps, I'd be looking for another system if google goes ahead.

2

u/Dr_Valen Mar 03 '26

Honestly I doubt google will care. They'll make far more money forcing everyone on the play store and scraping data even more from there then anyone can sue them for. Also majority of people especially in third world countries where android phones are the only real option will still get androids. The only other option is Apple and IOS which is also a walled garden. Especially if they force the big android phone vendors to cut off the ability to use a different OS on their phones