It is funny how we have two storm fronts here. Google trying to lock down apps to only Google approved developers, and legal decisions to open up alternative app stores that would potentially use apps that are not Google approved.
One wonders which side will win this one? All I know is, I still want my F-Droid with apps that Google doesn't have power over.
Both. If they copy Apple, which they will, you'll be able to install any app store but the app store will only be able to install Google-approved apps.
These appear to be related. The requirement to open up to other app stores also came with a requirement that Google support those app stores with their (admittedly messy) malware detection. Suddenly Google is looking at requirements to review apps that they have way less information about. I can only imagine that the developer identification efforts are an attempt to make that easier.
HN in general has completely misunderstood app verification. App verification is what allows rival app stores to be installed without a warning, even if they aren't installed from a system app store. It is a direct result of this ruling.
It's still possible to install any app with a warning. A future Google Android build will require developer mode to be enabled to install those apps. That is the problem to address, not app verification, which will be rolled out as a Google Play Services update to existing Google Android builds and makes it strictly easier to install apps than before.
Before app verification any app store could install any app without having the user jump through crazy hoops. After app verification any app store can only install Google-blessed apps without having the user jump through crazy hoops.
App verification does not "allow" anything. Its only purpose is to block non-blessed apps through third-party stores and extracting an additional bribe from developers. You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.
> Before app verification any app store could install any app without having the user jump through crazy hoops
After app verification, exactly the same. Nothing changes about what app stores can do.
> App verification does not "allow" anything
It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install. Prior to app verification , the user had to click through a dialog to go to settings to allow installation from the app that triggered the install.
> You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.
Exactly right. The broader environment was that Google was forced to allow installation of apps outside of system app stores without the user having to tap through a warning dialog. This is the solution to that problem.
No, because to install unverified apps the user has to 1) enable developer mode, 2) confirm you aren't being guided, 3) reboot the device, 4) wait 24 hours, 5) enable unverified app installation. You also have to confirm that you are really-really sure with every install. Oh, and that step 5? Google explicitly recommends turning it on for 7 days only.
> It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install.
... which was already possible, so it is not enabled by app verification.
> You are confusing app verification with a change in how to install unverified apps.
It is two parts of the same thing. App verification exists only to make installing unverified apps difficult. App verification has no reason to exist if installing unverified apps is not restricted.
App verification means, Google can deny apps entry into Android for whatever reason Google comes up with. There are no clear and objective rules nor are there any real options to object.
And that is the problem. Google can just deny anything that does stuff in a creative new way or that poses a competitive risk.
And, if Google decides you are not comming in, there is no warning you can click to go around that.
I do fear for all these youtube alternative app developers. If I was building them, no way am I handing over my personal ID to Google. They would leverage that almost immediately.
They will continue to not verify their identity with Google, the same as they do now. This is where the new unknown sources installation flow comes in. In the future, their users on Google Android devices will have to enable developer mode in order to install these apps. On the plus side, this setting will persist when users migrate to new devices, unlike now. On the minus side, there is no reason this should require enabling developer mode. This is what people should be complaining about.
> App verification is what allows rival app stores to be installed without a warning, even if they aren't installed from a system app store
Wrong. That's what the company wants. App verification isn't needed for anything, and a "rival app store" is just another app store and should be treated as such.
That is already required to list an app on the Play Store. What app verification means is that if you've done that, you don't have to distribute through the play store. People can install your app (or app store) from your website and not get a scary warning about whether to allow installs for apps downloaded from your browser, as required by the judge's ruling. Nothing else changes. People who complain to their legislators about app verification will get laughed at. I already explained what they should complain about instead.
> Why do you think it is your place to tell people where to prioritize their personal lobbying efforts?
If you lobby for something that is obviously nonsensical, you are wasting your time. I am educating people in order to prevent them from wasting their time and hopefully accomplish something useful instead.
> Btw very few of the apps on my phone are from the play store, so not sure what you're on about.
If you use a Google Android build, your life gets strictly easier because of app verification. That's what I'm on about.
See my original comment. To repeat, app verification makes it strictly easier to install apps as required by the judge's ruling. Asking your legislator to stop app verification will get you laughed at. My original comment also explains what you should complain about instead to not get laughed at and to fix something that actually needs fixing.
the whole point of using an alternative app store is to be able to install apps that are NOT approved by google. if google is the only allowed arbiter of what may be installed then we are no better off then using the google play store, because i find it highly unlikely that google would approve an app that it would not allow on the play store as well. (ok, sure, an alternate app store would also get around google taking a 30% cut, but that's less important for me)
> the whole point of using an alternative app store is to be able to install apps that are NOT approved by google
No, the whole point of using an alternative app store is to get better deals for developers or end users. Apps that are not approved by Google can still be installed. The whole point of app verification is to allow installation outside a system app store (e.g., directly from a website or from another app store) without any scary warnings, as required by the judge's ruling.
You say this like the scary warnings aren't an entirely artificial barrier by google. Before the app verification, I could install apps from freedroid just fine without any scary warnings.
> Before the app verification, I could install apps from freedroid just fine without any scary warnings.
All Google Android builds show a scary warning before you can install apps outside the system app stores. That's why the judge's ruling required Google to do away with the scary warning, leading to app verification, which accomplishes what the judge required. If you don't use a Google Android build, neither app verification nor the new unknown source installation flow affect you.
It was one warning to install F-Droid (to allow installs from the app that downloaded it) and another warning to install your first app from F-Droid (to allow installs from F-Droid). The judge said those warnings were unacceptable. Hence, app verification.
I don't know, here in the real world, so far the EU's regulations of Apple has shown Google that it can safely make Android a closed platform. Before there was uncertainty that Google didn't want to test. This is possible because EU don't care about "sideloading" and accept the security argument to allow gatekeeping by the device/OS makers.
Meanwhile Apple is having fun how to creatively pass the EU regulations while defeating every point of it in practical terms.
Maybe in a decade or two there will be something useful from this, but in the meantime it will be worse.
Supreme Court rejected Apple's last chance to stay negotiating a fee for using 3rd party payments in apps based on costs, so Apple asked the judge to force Epic into settlement talks and proposed a commission of 5%-15% that ignores "costs" because there are none and they feel the court's instruction to base it on costs is invalid.
Love it. The only problem is that they can just make this changes region-specific, like Apple has been doing with everything they didn't like being ordered to do. So in the end these international companies are minimally affected.
Anyone else noticed that every single other company that had a bone to pick against Apple or Google (companies like Match and Spotify) haven't been saying shit lately about any of this?
It's always still just Epic Games being whiny and pissy?
Kinda weird. I guess once Spotify got 300+ million paid subscribers they lost the plot themselves on what they were fighting for (and haven't given us things like promised AirPlay 2 support still). I guess the Match Group found other ways to pry and extort money out of sad lonely people.
But Timmy? Oh, Timmy needs his 63% developer take of in-game purchases inside Fortnite. The kids need their skins!
They're probably afraid to get banned by Google (which is guaranteed to happen and they did ban Epic), lose all their revenue and go out of business before the lawsuit finishes (Epic's is still going after years and years)
I am not sure I am against app verification. I almost installed an APK that was a banking infostealer. Is there really no other way? Microsoft fixed this with a built in virus scanner on Windows
That is exactly the problem a choice of app stores solves. Instead of downloading APKs you se stores you trust, and some store apps support multiple repos. Its a Linux like solution.
Android, at least those with Play Service, already have built-in scanning for APKs right now. The main problem is currently only Google can "trust" the dev signature for apps they release, so if an app or dev is in Google's naughty list, either for outright malware or for an adblocker, they're out.
At least there will be a setting for users to allow any app from any dev, which those who know about it will enable right away, and those who don't know about it have no business to use it anyway.
> Microsoft fixed this with a built in virus scanner on Windows
Oh, Android has this already! Third-party apps will still be subjected to the Google Play Protect scanning. Making sideloading needlessly difficult is done for business reasons, not device safety.
It is funny how we have two storm fronts here. Google trying to lock down apps to only Google approved developers, and legal decisions to open up alternative app stores that would potentially use apps that are not Google approved.
One wonders which side will win this one? All I know is, I still want my F-Droid with apps that Google doesn't have power over.
Both. If they copy Apple, which they will, you'll be able to install any app store but the app store will only be able to install Google-approved apps.
and only in jurisdictions that have spent the time and money forcing them to do so.
This storm fronts are really just Google trying to dig in as deep as possible.
On one end they are trying to fight the requirements for alternative app stores and making them as hard as possible to use.
On the other end they are trying to put hooks so that they can block installations of apps from other app stores.
Then they hope that regulation will take longer to dislodge the various methods they are using to retain control.
These appear to be related. The requirement to open up to other app stores also came with a requirement that Google support those app stores with their (admittedly messy) malware detection. Suddenly Google is looking at requirements to review apps that they have way less information about. I can only imagine that the developer identification efforts are an attempt to make that easier.
HN in general has completely misunderstood app verification. App verification is what allows rival app stores to be installed without a warning, even if they aren't installed from a system app store. It is a direct result of this ruling.
It's still possible to install any app with a warning. A future Google Android build will require developer mode to be enabled to install those apps. That is the problem to address, not app verification, which will be rolled out as a Google Play Services update to existing Google Android builds and makes it strictly easier to install apps than before.
Before app verification any app store could install any app without having the user jump through crazy hoops. After app verification any app store can only install Google-blessed apps without having the user jump through crazy hoops.
App verification does not "allow" anything. Its only purpose is to block non-blessed apps through third-party stores and extracting an additional bribe from developers. You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.
> Before app verification any app store could install any app without having the user jump through crazy hoops
After app verification, exactly the same. Nothing changes about what app stores can do.
> App verification does not "allow" anything
It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install. Prior to app verification , the user had to click through a dialog to go to settings to allow installation from the app that triggered the install.
> You cannot view app verification's existence without considering the broader environment it was created for.
Exactly right. The broader environment was that Google was forced to allow installation of apps outside of system app stores without the user having to tap through a warning dialog. This is the solution to that problem.
> After app verification, exactly the same.
No, because to install unverified apps the user has to 1) enable developer mode, 2) confirm you aren't being guided, 3) reboot the device, 4) wait 24 hours, 5) enable unverified app installation. You also have to confirm that you are really-really sure with every install. Oh, and that step 5? Google explicitly recommends turning it on for 7 days only.
> It allows installing apps outside a system app store without the user having to enable installing from the app that triggered the install.
... which was already possible, so it is not enabled by app verification.
> You are confusing app verification with a change in how to install unverified apps.
It is two parts of the same thing. App verification exists only to make installing unverified apps difficult. App verification has no reason to exist if installing unverified apps is not restricted.
> No, because to install unverified apps the user has to 1) enable developer mode,
As I said in my first comment, that change is separate from app verification.
> which was already possible, so it is not enabled by app verification
It was not. Read the rest of that sentence beginning with "without."
> App verification has no reason to exist if installing unverified apps is not restricted.
App verification is required to allow installing apps outside a system app store without any warning to the user, as required by the ruling.
App verification means, Google can deny apps entry into Android for whatever reason Google comes up with. There are no clear and objective rules nor are there any real options to object.
And that is the problem. Google can just deny anything that does stuff in a creative new way or that poses a competitive risk.
And, if Google decides you are not comming in, there is no warning you can click to go around that.
I do fear for all these youtube alternative app developers. If I was building them, no way am I handing over my personal ID to Google. They would leverage that almost immediately.
They will continue to not verify their identity with Google, the same as they do now. This is where the new unknown sources installation flow comes in. In the future, their users on Google Android devices will have to enable developer mode in order to install these apps. On the plus side, this setting will persist when users migrate to new devices, unlike now. On the minus side, there is no reason this should require enabling developer mode. This is what people should be complaining about.
>App verification means, Google can deny apps entry into Android for whatever reason Google comes up with.
Two errors:
1. Google only gets to determine what app verification allows without warning on Google builds of Android.
2. You can still install unverified apps.
> App verification is what allows rival app stores to be installed without a warning, even if they aren't installed from a system app store
Wrong. That's what the company wants. App verification isn't needed for anything, and a "rival app store" is just another app store and should be treated as such.
What does app verification mean to you? Does it involve sending a copy of your ID to google? Because imho that alone is a problem.
> Because imho that alone is a problem.
That is already required to list an app on the Play Store. What app verification means is that if you've done that, you don't have to distribute through the play store. People can install your app (or app store) from your website and not get a scary warning about whether to allow installs for apps downloaded from your browser, as required by the judge's ruling. Nothing else changes. People who complain to their legislators about app verification will get laughed at. I already explained what they should complain about instead.
Why do you think it is your place to tell people where to prioritize their personal lobbying efforts?
Btw very few of the apps on my phone are from the play store, so not sure what you're on about.
> Why do you think it is your place to tell people where to prioritize their personal lobbying efforts?
If you lobby for something that is obviously nonsensical, you are wasting your time. I am educating people in order to prevent them from wasting their time and hopefully accomplish something useful instead.
> Btw very few of the apps on my phone are from the play store, so not sure what you're on about.
If you use a Google Android build, your life gets strictly easier because of app verification. That's what I'm on about.
I am educating people
You didn't even provide a reason why it is "obviously nonsensical".
See my original comment. To repeat, app verification makes it strictly easier to install apps as required by the judge's ruling. Asking your legislator to stop app verification will get you laughed at. My original comment also explains what you should complain about instead to not get laughed at and to fix something that actually needs fixing.
Sure, just like age verification is what allows governments to protect children, right?
HN in general gets AB 1043 wrong as well, so that's kind of similar. There is no verification of age involved.
the whole point of using an alternative app store is to be able to install apps that are NOT approved by google. if google is the only allowed arbiter of what may be installed then we are no better off then using the google play store, because i find it highly unlikely that google would approve an app that it would not allow on the play store as well. (ok, sure, an alternate app store would also get around google taking a 30% cut, but that's less important for me)
> the whole point of using an alternative app store is to be able to install apps that are NOT approved by google
No, the whole point of using an alternative app store is to get better deals for developers or end users. Apps that are not approved by Google can still be installed. The whole point of app verification is to allow installation outside a system app store (e.g., directly from a website or from another app store) without any scary warnings, as required by the judge's ruling.
You say this like the scary warnings aren't an entirely artificial barrier by google. Before the app verification, I could install apps from freedroid just fine without any scary warnings.
> Before the app verification, I could install apps from freedroid just fine without any scary warnings.
All Google Android builds show a scary warning before you can install apps outside the system app stores. That's why the judge's ruling required Google to do away with the scary warning, leading to app verification, which accomplishes what the judge required. If you don't use a Google Android build, neither app verification nor the new unknown source installation flow affect you.
They showed one warning once when I installed Freedroid, and that's it. There was no extra steps needed on each install from Freedroid.
It was one warning to install F-Droid (to allow installs from the app that downloaded it) and another warning to install your first app from F-Droid (to allow installs from F-Droid). The judge said those warnings were unacceptable. Hence, app verification.
And not, hence, getting rid of the warnings? Because F-droid is going to have even more warnings now.
What a day for app store regulation: when it rains it pours as the saying goes.
I don't know, here in the real world, so far the EU's regulations of Apple has shown Google that it can safely make Android a closed platform. Before there was uncertainty that Google didn't want to test. This is possible because EU don't care about "sideloading" and accept the security argument to allow gatekeeping by the device/OS makers.
Meanwhile Apple is having fun how to creatively pass the EU regulations while defeating every point of it in practical terms.
Maybe in a decade or two there will be something useful from this, but in the meantime it will be worse.
what else did I miss today?
Supreme Court rejected Apple's last chance to stay negotiating a fee for using 3rd party payments in apps based on costs, so Apple asked the judge to force Epic into settlement talks and proposed a commission of 5%-15% that ignores "costs" because there are none and they feel the court's instruction to base it on costs is invalid.
https://archive.is/1G6uQ
That's not a trusted source anymore: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...
Love it. The only problem is that they can just make this changes region-specific, like Apple has been doing with everything they didn't like being ordered to do. So in the end these international companies are minimally affected.
> “Have it done by a week from today”, he ordered
I’m glad judges are sick of their feet dragging. I’m sad it’s not happening to Apple too though.
Quoting BoJack Horseman ``You've been adjudicated''
Anyone else noticed that every single other company that had a bone to pick against Apple or Google (companies like Match and Spotify) haven't been saying shit lately about any of this?
It's always still just Epic Games being whiny and pissy?
Kinda weird. I guess once Spotify got 300+ million paid subscribers they lost the plot themselves on what they were fighting for (and haven't given us things like promised AirPlay 2 support still). I guess the Match Group found other ways to pry and extort money out of sad lonely people.
But Timmy? Oh, Timmy needs his 63% developer take of in-game purchases inside Fortnite. The kids need their skins!
They're probably afraid to get banned by Google (which is guaranteed to happen and they did ban Epic), lose all their revenue and go out of business before the lawsuit finishes (Epic's is still going after years and years)
You're misremembering. Epic's entire developer account got banned by Apple.
https://www.epicgames.com/site/news/apple-terminated-epic-s-...
Google removed one of Epic's apps (not the entire developer account) from the Play Store for violating policies that the judge has since struck down.
I am not sure I am against app verification. I almost installed an APK that was a banking infostealer. Is there really no other way? Microsoft fixed this with a built in virus scanner on Windows
That is exactly the problem a choice of app stores solves. Instead of downloading APKs you se stores you trust, and some store apps support multiple repos. Its a Linux like solution.
There's definitely no way to prevent crime except for putting a surveillance camera in everyone's bathroom.
Depends who is watching.
It could be Mister Rogers himself for all I fucking care, no cameras in the bathroom please.
Android, at least those with Play Service, already have built-in scanning for APKs right now. The main problem is currently only Google can "trust" the dev signature for apps they release, so if an app or dev is in Google's naughty list, either for outright malware or for an adblocker, they're out.
At least there will be a setting for users to allow any app from any dev, which those who know about it will enable right away, and those who don't know about it have no business to use it anyway.
> Microsoft fixed this with a built in virus scanner on Windows
Oh, Android has this already! Third-party apps will still be subjected to the Google Play Protect scanning. Making sideloading needlessly difficult is done for business reasons, not device safety.