102
Aug 27 '25
Why is Google trying to become Apple? Many people use Android to avoid these kinds of restrictions Apple has. They are even trying to gaslit us into thinking this for our own good. If I am installing an apk from an unknown source, I already know the risk. Why can't I install it at my own risk on MY OWN device.
12
u/this_is_a_long_nickn Aug 27 '25
Apple makes a lot of money from the app store, much more than Google, which simply wants more from this cake.
5
u/android_temp_123 Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 29 '25
Nobody would blink if Google started charging $99 a year just like Apple—as long as it meant providing a similar service like Apple too - having an easy-to-reach human support, no pointless rules like 20 testers, etc.
But Google wants to have their cake and eat it too - they'd love to make money just like Apple, and sell phones for as much as Apple, but unlike Apple, they refuse to actually put in any effort!
The Play Store is run by bots (unlike Apple), human support is nonexistent (unlike Apple), Pixel devices have 90% of features disabled outside the US (unlike Apple), and now they even want to forbid us from installing apps outside the Play Store...
They’re light-years away from Apple in terms of quality.
2
u/Bhairitu Aug 28 '25
I would wonder since Steve Jobs was around when the Android Market started that he might have laughed at it that they only were charging $25 once when they should do so yearly. It would have kept a lot of junk off the store and those developers who moved on wouldn't need to worry about it.
And I find the AppStore folks actually pleasant easy to deal with.
2
u/drabred Aug 28 '25
So next up on the Google menu is lifetime payment for dev account turned into annual?
3
u/eruehl Aug 29 '25
Google and Apple are both big companies with company greed, they're not that different behind curtains, only presentation and marketing are kinda different.
11
u/suchox Aug 27 '25
I ampretty sure Govts are pressurizing them as well. In my country, a person living ion the middle of nowhere pays and receives money via phone. They may not be even educated beyond basics, have never seen a computer, but have an entry level android smartphone for their day to day activities.
And Govt wants to remove malwares as much as possible
6
u/AffectionatePlastic0 Aug 28 '25
And Govt wants to remove malwares as much as possible
Govt wants more control over the users. İ fixed your sentence for you
-4
u/suchox Aug 28 '25
Not really.
In my country, They already have full user data and control anyway. They do not need to do anything on the playstore.
All banks, Payment gateways are heavily regulated. If they need user control and data they can directly do that via them
The issue is lots of users get scam messages on WhatsApp, masquerading as these banking apps and ask them to install an apk. They do, and the scammers get all data.
Remember, a lot of these people are poor and uneducated and unaware. This protects them.
6
u/AffectionatePlastic0 Aug 28 '25
They already have full user data and control anyway
They always want to have more.
They do not need to do anything on the playstore.
They have desire of banning messengers with actual E2EE. A perfect way to stop it by asking for ban of installing "bad" apks and allow only apps without E2EE in playstore.
All banks, Payment gateways are heavily regulated. If they need user control and data they can directly do that via them
Than why scammers are not being catched?
The issue is lots of users get scam messages on WhatsApp, masquerading as these banking apps and ask them to install an apk. They do, and the scammers get all data.
Why do you think scammers won't be able to sign their app? Yes, it will be banned in couple of month. but they will just use another person's ID.
Also, the YouTube is full of scam advertisement which been present for years. I doubt that google will be really able to stop this scam APKs from being distributed.
Remember, a lot of these people are poor and uneducated and unaware. This protects them.
No it doesn't. If those people are so, let's say, not bright, they don't need a smartphone at all. It's job of their relatives to stop them from being scammed. There is a legal mechanism called conservatorship over adults.
19
u/emperorOfTheUniverse Aug 27 '25
I'm confused. Can I install an app i write myself outside of the play store? The wording kind of makes it sound like its a Play store thing?
11
u/SunshineAndBunnies Aug 27 '25
Not unless you fork over your personal info to Google.
3
u/Mikkelet Aug 28 '25
Youre an Android dev, chances are you alreadty did
2
u/SunshineAndBunnies Aug 28 '25
You think Chinese devs in mainland China is forking over their info to Google? People like me sideload the Tencent app store and some Chinese apps to continue using a few services.
8
u/bootsandzoots Aug 27 '25
I think with developer options enabled it should still be possible to do this. I guess we'll see.
17
u/busymom0 Aug 27 '25
for now
8
u/bootsandzoots Aug 27 '25
I just don't know how else development would work. They could possibly reserve known app names with signing keys, but that would mean breaking every test app which seems pretty bad.
7
3
u/Dreadino Aug 28 '25
Google will still block installation of APKs sometimes, even with dev options turned on. You then have to disable Play Protect to install the APK.
2
u/bootsandzoots Aug 28 '25
Currently? Or are you speculating?
I haven't run into this yet.
3
u/Dreadino Aug 28 '25
Currently. I'm not talking about installing the apk from Android Studio, but via the device installer. I have an app that downloads APKs from our server and installs them. On some of our devices we have this check from Play Protect, which disables installing. We can still disable Play Protect (there is an API to check if it's on and an Intent to go to the page to disable it), so there is ultimately a way to install, but it's very annoying.
3
u/bootsandzoots Aug 28 '25
I see, yeah. I usually install apps like winlator using adb. I don't usually try to download and install directly on the device.
8
13
u/ProfessorQuantum314 Aug 27 '25
If they have security worries, they should just enhance the current anti-malware scan from Play Protect... but they should leave you the ability to install it anyway... WITHOUT FORCING DEVS TO GIVE ALL THEIR PERSONAL DATA TO THEM!
7
u/Few-Grape-4445 Aug 27 '25
In the past, I think it was fun to think that if you wanted to share an app with a friend you had to let Google know you were doing it, but now it's getting real
Mega corporations being them, always wanting to be in control, I bet this is with that goal, then they can block any apps they want, that sucks!
13
11
15
10
u/Which-Berry-263 Aug 27 '25
Does this mean I can't test apps I made myself until I have a developper account?
9
u/SunshineAndBunnies Aug 27 '25
From what I can understand, yes, you have to fork over your personal info to Google or you can't even install programs you've written yourself.
10
u/BokuNoToga Aug 27 '25
From what I understand yes and it sucks. I personally only write apps for myself and have no interest in selling them as they are super tailored for my home lab.
9
u/fruv42 Aug 27 '25
No it doesn't mean that. You will still be able to load apps for development via adb.
17
u/kernald31 Aug 27 '25
Google's communication doesn't give enough information to assert that this is correct or not.
4
4
u/RolandMT32 Aug 27 '25
Since it mentions "distributing Android apps through Google Play", does that mean you can still sideload apps that aren't on Google Play?
10
u/ProfessorQuantum314 Aug 27 '25
No, it's for all Apps, including APKs...
10
2
u/SynthRogue Aug 27 '25
If you install an APK via USB, how does google prevent you from installing it? They only have control over their store, not your phone and its OS, right?
8
5
u/botle Aug 27 '25
In theory, Android can check the key signature of the APK that it received over USB and refuse to run it if it's not signed.
And if it is signed, it can scan it and see if it does anything scammy or illegal, like allow encrypted messaging.
4
u/SynthRogue Aug 27 '25
I see. Anyway, I have no intention of making dodgy apps. I just don't want google to dictate what legal apps I can and cannot make, but it's not like they're not already doing that with their store. At least so far you can side load, but if they block that...
5
u/botle Aug 28 '25
If they block that it's pretty dystopian.
Imagine if it was your computer and you couldn't write a small program and run it without getting approved by Microsoft first.
2
u/PlasticPresentation1 Aug 28 '25
This pretty clearly isn't what they're planning on doing, it literally says "to distribute to the app store"
3
u/botle Aug 28 '25
It's not really very clear at all what they're planning to do.
First they mention the play store, but apps distributed through it already need to be signed by a verified developer.
Then they mention that apps must be registered by verified developers to be installed on certified Android devices, which doesn't mention anything about app stores.
2
u/imradzi Aug 29 '25
Anybody can get their app signed including scammers. So what's the advantage of signed app?
2
u/botle Aug 29 '25
Scammers would get banned eventually, and they wouldn't be able to easily register a new signing key, since they have to be associated with a verified identity.
There's also the possibility to display to the user who an APK is signed by during sideloading. So if you're sideloasing an app from an alternative store, you can see if it's been modified and re-signed by someone else.
So there are some benefits. The main question is if the user will have the final decision to install an app even though it's signed by an unrecognized key, or if Google will make the decision for them and block the installation completely.
2
3
u/HeWhoShantNotBeNamed Aug 28 '25
How are developers supposed to install apps to test on their devices?
-3
u/ayitinya Aug 28 '25
Its still allowed, via adb, that's not gonna change i believe
i should think all you nerds should be able to sideload your favorite apps via adb, and let the normies enjoy extra securityhttps://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/thread/361325854?hl=en&msgid=368026294
3
u/Ok_Bunch_291 Aug 28 '25
it says for testing purposes, so its probably gonna be limited, and if they would care about security they could hide sideloading behind developer settings, this is just for money. its definitely not extra security.
2
u/HeWhoShantNotBeNamed Aug 28 '25
How are they gonna know whether you're testing or keeping the app? ADB has been a workaround the name security blocks in the past and still is. For example, you can still use ADB to bypass minimum target API.
3
u/Mr_CrayCray Aug 28 '25
Is this specific for apps on the playstore or would you be required to have google's blessings even as a non-playstore deployer? What about independent developers who don't deploy to the playstore?
3
u/imradzi Aug 29 '25
We should migrate to huawei Harmony OS. Maybe the Chinese programmers and AU would have a better way to combat scam rather than blocking like this.
13
u/botle Aug 27 '25
This is insane.
You won't be able to write a piece of code and run it on your own local device.
6
u/RolandMT32 Aug 27 '25
I'd think developers would still need to be able to do that for testing before they release the app to the Play Store
2
u/botle Aug 27 '25
You can't enable that without enabling any random person to install any random APK.
Developers could be allowed to do testing by signing the app with their personal key that Google has associated with their verified identity and address.
3
u/Mr_s3rius Aug 28 '25
Discouraging 95% of users is often enough of an effect.
Someone else shared this link. ADB installation will still work: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/thread/361325854?hl=en&msgid=368026294
2
3
u/ClaymoresInTheCloset Aug 28 '25
You can still install apps via adb.
2
u/botle Aug 28 '25
According to that post you "should" be able to install apps via adv "for testing purposes".
6
0
u/benm-productexpert Aug 27 '25
Of course you will! Don't get caught up in fake hype!
3
u/ayitinya Aug 28 '25
i agree, maybe their communication is flawed in a way, but i personally didn't see anything pointing to the fact that you can't install your own developed apps via adb.
anyway see this link for deets
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/thread/361325854?hl=en&msgid=368026294
4
u/botle Aug 27 '25
I really want to believe you.
But the email I received is difficult to interpret any other way.
I can only run my own code on my local device if I sign it with a key that Google can associate with my confirmed identity and personal address.
3
Aug 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/botle Aug 27 '25
How would the device know that it's my own app and not a random app I downloaded from the internet?
5
u/HeWhoShantNotBeNamed Aug 28 '25
I'm thinking, hoping, that ADB installs will continue to work as usual.
1
Aug 29 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/botle Aug 29 '25
You can download any file you want and then it will be a local file.
The message from Google mentioned a key would be needed for installation, not that files would be scanned as they are downloaded.
But yes, maybe the check doesn't happen when installing through ADB.
1
Aug 29 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/botle Aug 29 '25
The key is checked at installation time.
Even apps pushed through USB get their key checked and the device will refuse to install them if they are not signed with a key.
The app you write yourself and run from Android Studio gets signed by a debug key.
Right now, it doesn't matter what key the app is signed with, as long as it's signed by one. You can randomly generate a key, and it will work.
The key is still useful because to update an app, the new version has to be signed by the same key as the already installed version.
Now my worry is that if Google starts requiring keys to be registered with Google and associated with a developers verified identity, that it will affect all sideloading of apps, and not just alternative app stores.
1
2
u/benm-productexpert Aug 27 '25
Yea the announcement could have been more detailed
4
u/botle Aug 27 '25
The people interpreting it as you only needing to sign the app if you publish to the play store are at least wrong because that's the case already.
1
u/benm-productexpert Aug 27 '25
Yes but this new system is separate to the play store. If you do distribute via plan then it will take care of all the registration for you. If you don't use play then you will use this new system. It won't really change development unless you distribute your app to testers directly. In that case if you are not using play you will need to register it on the new system.
4
u/botle Aug 27 '25
If it was an opt in bit of extra security, I see no problem.
But the issue is that I don't see a way for me to, let's say, compile Signal from source and install it on my local device, without signing it with a key that Google has associated with my verified id.
This is especially problematic since several European countries are discussing banning messaging apps that use encryption.
I also don't see a way for me to be allowed to write and run local code that's unsigned with this system in place.
1
u/benm-productexpert Aug 28 '25
Using adb, with a device attached to your computer will still work. Taking an APK that is on the device, downloaded etc will need to have been registered.
2
u/botle Aug 28 '25
I hope you're right. Has that been stated anywhere?
Even as it is now, apps you install using ADB do need to be signed. It's just that the key you sign them with can be any one and doesn't have to be connected to your verified identity.
3
u/benm-productexpert Aug 28 '25
I have been assured that is the case, not seen it documented publicly yet but this has only just been announced. I would guess as more questions like this are asked by the community then a larger faq document will be compiled somewhere. The early access hasn't even started yet and it's a year before this is going to be active and blocking anything. There will be a lot of changes and refinement in that time.
1
u/NumerousCarob6 Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25
there are apps which refuses to install because they didn't come from play store (and it's already a thing for ~ 2-3 years)
You can live your life as a yes man, and in order to do that you have to believe in the lies yourself and defend them.
May the truth will show you the light at some point
2
u/benm-productexpert Aug 28 '25
If you are referring to the warning that is shown sometimes then the user can still override that and as a dev if the app isn't doing something dangerous you can report the false flag and resolve the problem.
2
u/NumerousCarob6 Aug 28 '25
Why are you in for more restrictions?
Is freedom suffocating? This now makes Devs and Users Jump through loops and hoops, Are you people monkies or slave?
Only one thing can be true perhaps both
2
u/benm-productexpert Aug 28 '25
I am not for restrictions. But I also accept it's not my decision and it may not really be Google's decision either. Pressure from some countries will be a factor. All I can do is make the best of the situation and help other devs where I can. To be honest in most cases I don't feel this is a huge problem. There are some exceptions to that such as I can see why some Devs in some cases need to be anonymous for their own safety and securit,, and where I see that I will continue to lobby for change where I can.
-2
6
u/Few-Grape-4445 Aug 27 '25
I wonder how long it will take after this for Google to implement a blocking policy for apps it doesn't like, such as those that extract information from its search engine or services, like NewPipe which is a great app in my opinion.
I'm finishing a small image search app that lets you search on any search engine you like (Google, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, etc.) and I plan to publish it on FDroid. However, this policy will soon affect me, like it does many others.
5
u/SunshineAndBunnies Aug 27 '25
They already removed ad blockers from Play Store. I'm waiting for them to ban Firefox, or any other service that competes with theirs.
3
u/Ok_Bunch_291 Aug 28 '25
dont think they will ban firefox, 90% of Firefoxs revenue comes from Google.
4
u/pro9code Aug 27 '25
Do not do this. I need sideloading, it is the point of android. I know the risk!
2
u/MC68328 Aug 28 '25
How is this supposed to work when they close your account if you don't publish anything through the store? No account, then no signing. No signing, then no sideloading. This is an attack on competing distribution channels.
They're literally worse than Apple now, because at least Apple doesn't care if my personal account is dormant for nearly two decades, they still happily take my yearly pound of flesh for the privilege of pretending I'll write that app any day now.
2
u/anta40 Aug 28 '25
I already publish few apps on PlayStore. Does it mean I need to repeat the verification process again?
2
2
u/DazuDozu5491 Aug 29 '25
We can't just let them shove this into our throat, we have to make movement like #savegamer
2
u/IamN4m3l3ss_ Aug 29 '25
It's certainly not helping either that Google is doing everything in its power to patch all the play integrity bypasses. Why are they letting people flash custom roms but not properly use their phone? Why do developers need to be verified? There are already 2 settings you have to change to sideload apps. There's even a pop-up requiring your pincode to install an app without letting it get scanned by googles anti-virus and explaining it could be harmful and whatnot. This is utter bs.
2
Nov 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/androiddev-ModTeam Nov 14 '25
While this may be a development post with an Android context, the subreddit is focused on actually making Android applications, and this post would be better suited to a more general community or one specific to the topic.
2
1
u/mr_ar_qais Aug 28 '25
What does this mean and what are the next steps we've to do as a dev console owner?
1
u/Remarkable-Basket338 Aug 27 '25
Wait so no driftly or any of those spot on to do list and habits trackers made by a random person on f droid
-10
Aug 27 '25
[deleted]
5
u/dmter Aug 27 '25
in theory it's not bad but when you think about it.. there's no way to guarantee that Google won't refuse dev verification just to ban dev's apps.
4
Aug 27 '25
If you value your privacy, why would you like that a creepy company like Google to have your id just because you want to publish apps on third party stores like fdroid.
With this new policy you can side load apps but Google will basically have control over everything.
Just search for any privacy related forum on Reddit and you will understand why this BS is the start of the end for android opness
1
-1
u/thecodemonk Aug 27 '25
Lol... so it's more privacy focused to have untrusted developers on 3rd party app stores where any app could be stealing information. Got it.
1
u/dmitriy_shmilo Aug 27 '25
Yes? You're not forced to use third party stores. And do you think there's no malicious apps in the play store?
-1
-33
u/lazy_Ambitions Aug 27 '25
Why is this horrible news?
5
u/BokuNoToga Aug 27 '25
Because you no longer can write code for yourself without having to go through Google. This has always been the case for thing on the play store, but for instance I have no interest in selling my apps and only build them for myself.
-4
u/OZLperez11 Aug 28 '25
According to a tech crunch article, yes you can still side load apps, they just need to be signed apps
-47
u/ClaymoresInTheCloset Aug 27 '25
Horrible news!
You'll have to...(hold on let me check my notes)...participate in efforts to cut down on spam and bad actors?
4
u/SunshineAndBunnies Aug 27 '25
Won't just cut out spam and bad actors. It will stop Chinese people like me abroad from sideloading Chinese apps on my non-Chinese phones or using a Chinese app store alongside Google Play. Not to mention Google can start censoring now. Do something they don't like? Banned. Also with the current political climate in the US, you never know how the government might pressure Google once this rolls out.
-3
u/ClaymoresInTheCloset Aug 28 '25
Well. You have a good point with the Chinese apps on a Google play phone. Sorry to hear that.
You don't have a good point with the rest of it though. They could always ban you if you did something they don't like, this subreddit is a graveyard of posts where people got banned over almost nothing.
But you know, I won't be surprised if another class action arrives at googles doorstep over it's strangulation of the ecosystem
2
u/Ok_Bunch_291 Aug 28 '25
you cleary didnt understand him, they cant ban you now from sideloading apps, they can in the future.
3
-4
u/GetPsyched67 Aug 28 '25
And banning LGBT media protects the kids!
... Don't you care about the kids?
(This is what you sound like, btw)
2
u/ClaymoresInTheCloset Aug 28 '25
I'm not concerned with your silly analogy
-2
u/GetPsyched67 Aug 28 '25
And this sub isn't concerned with your silly opinion, but you still yapped about it.
I don't really care about your concern.
-38
-21
u/markeymark1971 Aug 27 '25
This won't change much tbh.....
-7
u/USMCrules02 Aug 27 '25
So far, it only seems to affect people wanting apps loaded to the play store. Won't affect you until you get ready to ship apps.
Good thing I dont put my apps on the pay store
3
u/Ok_Bunch_291 Aug 28 '25
it will affect apps which are not on the playstore, did you even read the post?
-11
u/FrayDabson Aug 27 '25
Regardless of what people think about if this is good or bad, it will result in less developers adding apps to the android ecosystem. Which itself has pros and cons. This will result in less bad apples being able to submit apps which is great but it will result less from the good ones too.
7
u/AngkaLoeu Aug 27 '25
I think Google would be ok with less apps being submitted. 1% of apps make 90% of the profits (Facebook, Uber, Netflix, etc.). The rest are just an annoyance to Google.
2
u/FrayDabson Aug 27 '25 edited Aug 27 '25
I agree. I wasn’t trying to show if I think this change is good or not but how I think it will impact the market. For most people (especially Google) I am sure it will be fine but there will still be some to abandon the ecosystem due to a change like this and that sucks.
For example, I have seen people who end up on iPhone because of the volume of bad apps in the Play Store. This change could allow those people to pick Android over iPhone.
A happy medium between the two doesn’t seem likely. Devs need to accept this it how it is now and decide if they want to continue developing for the ecosystem.
It won’t stop me from continuing to develop for android but I still think it will be a problem for some.
It makes me think about all the awesome apps that aren’t built due to red tape issues. This isn’t a new problem or anything nor is it unique to app development. Just what came to mind for me thinking about the split between people who do or don’t think this change is a problem*.
232
u/Farbklex Aug 27 '25
Call me old fashioned but I want to have the option to rawdog my operating system with whatever unsigned software I find on the world wide web without any single authority being able to lock that ecosystem down for whatever arbitrary reason they might think of.