Google is tightening Android app security by requiring all developers >(whether they publish on the Play Store or sideload apps) to verify their >identities.
Starting in 2026, only apps from verified developers will be installable on >most certified Android devices
Google is tightening Android app security by requiring all developers >>(whether they publish on the Play Store or sideload apps) to verify their >>identities.
Starting in 2026, only apps from verified developers will be installable on >>most certified Android devices
I wonder if this Amazon Fire HD10 tablet I'm posting with is a certified
Android device in Google's opinion? Because I side loaded and signed into
the Google Play Store on it and thus get apps from both stores (Google and
the tablet's installed Amazon Appstore). Most of Google's store stuff runs
just fine on Amazon's forked Android version. Also much side loaded stuff.
Anyway it would be ironic if Google stopped me side loading unauthorized
apps because on this tablet Google IS an unauthorized side loaded app...
AJL wrote :
Google is tightening Android app security by requiring all developers (whether they publish on the Play Store or sideload apps) to verify
their identities. Starting in 2026, only apps from verified
developers will be installable on most certified Android devices
I wonder if this Amazon Fire HD10 tablet I'm posting with is a
certified Android device in Google's opinion? Because I side loaded
and signed into the Google Play Store on it and thus get apps from
both stores (Google and the tablet's installed Amazon Appstore).
Most of Google's store stuff runs just fine on Amazon's forked
Android version. Also much side loaded stuff. Anyway it would be
ironic if Google stopped me side loading unauthorized apps because
on this tablet Google IS an unauthorized side loaded app...
Hi AJL, This bothers me a lot as now we can't compile our own APKs
without signing up for a Google verified developer, which destroys
our privacy just like iOS destroys our privacy in an instant by
requiring those matrix logins. I'm glad you responded as you did, as
it didn't occur to me that some "Android" devices might not be
considered a "certified Android device".
Looking it up, apparently the Amazon Fire HD 10 runs Fire OS, which
is a heavily customized fork of Android. While it's technically Android-based, it's apparently not certified by Google under the
Android Compatibility Program. I think that means it doesn't come
with Google Mobile Services (GMS) pre installed, and from what I read
just now, it may very well be that Amazon doesn't submit Fire tablets
for Google's certification process.
So when Google says "most certified Android devices," they're
perhaps referring to devices that have passed compatibility testing
and are officially recognized by Google, such as the ubiquitous
Samsung Galaxy tablets or Pixel devices.
The problem is that if Google enforces this identity verification
rule strictly, it's possible that apps from unverified developers
might not install or run properly, even on sideload-friendly devices
like yours. Whether that enforcement will extend to uncertified
devices like Fire tablets is unclear to me, but it's definitely
something to watch over.
The only solution I can see for typical devices is each and every one
of us has to become an official Google developer - which seems crazy
to me
It's a bad direction, IMHO, for Google to take just because they want
to wrest control and claim it's being done for reasons that are said
to be safety (as that's clearly a lie). It's all about control. The
question now is what happens to 3rd-party repos and src code
compiles?
Starting in 2026, only apps from verified developers will be installable on most certified Android devicesCorrect me if I'm wrong, but there's absolutely no reason why Google
On 8/25/25 11:32 PM, Marion wrote:
Starting in 2026, only apps from verified developers will be installable on >> most certified Android devicesCorrect me if I'm wrong, but there's absolutely no reason why Google
should be able to decide what I choose to run on *my* device.
You can run on your device what you want. Of you choose to run Android
on your device you have to follow the Google-rules. Google is evil. Very
much like $MS$.
I think that we can safely say that Amazon doesn't officially let Google anywhere near their Fire tablets. And unofficially I was kinda surprised
that Amazon even let me side load the Google Play Store on it and that
once installed Google let me sign in and use it just like a regular
Google Android tablet.
There of course are a few quirks. Google sometimes tried to upgrade
Amazon apps so I just turned Google's auto upgrade off. Also sometimes
an upgrade of a Google app breaks it. My guess is because the upgraded
app now is too advanced for the Amazon Fire's older Android fork. So I
just revert to the earlier version and (usually) all is well.
So when Google says "most certified Android devices," they're
perhaps referring to devices that have passed compatibility testing
and are officially recognized by Google, such as the ubiquitous
Samsung Galaxy tablets or Pixel devices.
What about the less ubiquitous tablets? I have a 10" Android tablet
branded "DEZLTID". (The all capital letter logo is apparently a Chinese thing. I still haven't figured out how to pronounce it.) However it came
with Google installed so I'm guessing it's a certified device?
The problem is that if Google enforces this identity verification
rule strictly, it's possible that apps from unverified developers
might not install or run properly, even on sideload-friendly devices
like yours. Whether that enforcement will extend to uncertified
devices like Fire tablets is unclear to me, but it's definitely
something to watch over.
The only solution I can see for typical devices is each and every one
of us has to become an official Google developer - which seems crazy
to me
That would be crazy for me too especially being a non-technical person.
This is just a hobby for me. The last programming I did was a few years
back using Atari Basic...
On 8/25/25 11:32 PM, Marion wrote:..
Starting in 2026, only apps from verified developers will be installable on >> most certified Android devices
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's absolutely no reason why Google
should be able to decide what I choose to run on *my* device.
Hi AJL, I think it's great that each of us adds value in ways that
the others can't, where I've never even touched an Amazon Fire
Tablet, so we have to learn from what you've learned, and that which
you can impart to us of it.
It appears Amazon's strategy is to kind of sort of limit your
choices in app stores by making it much easier to use their app store
than the Google App Store, but luckily for you Fire OS still allows
for sideloading apps.
I don't know if this is correct but apparently 4 packages are needed:
1. Google Account Manager 2. Google Services Framework 3. Google Play Services 4. Google Play Store
If you use Aurora instead of the Google Play Store GUI, you don't
need those four things [Google installation APKs] anymore
which is a bonus in terms of privacy.
On 8/31/25 4:35 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
You can run on your device what you want. Of you choose to run Android
on your device you have to follow the Google-rules. Google is evil. Very
much like $MS$.
Literally the only reason for this BS is profit...
Of course. Do you work for free?
AJL wrote:
Gabriel Coan wrote:
Literally the only reason for this [Google & MS] BS is profit...
Of course. Do you work for free?
Of course not, but I also believe that Google is certainly not doing
this for the user's benefit.
They certainly seem to be pretending they are.
Gabriel Coan wrote:I think you are confusing a few things. In the service industry it is a
AJL wrote:
Gabriel Coan wrote:
Literally the only reason for this [Google & MS] BS is profit...
Of course. Do you work for free?
Of course not, but I also believe that Google is certainly not doing
this for the user's benefit.
Of course not. Google is a business like most any other business and as
such is designed to make a profit.
They certainly seem to be pretending they are.
I've not seen any Google ads pretending that they are a charity.
AJL wrote:
I've not seen any Google ads pretending that they are a charity.
I think you are confusing a few things. In the service industry
it is a clever and economic move to keep existing clients happy in a
way they buy again.
Gain new clients/customers is more expensive by factors. There is
absolutely no need to pretend to be a charity.
On 9/1/2025 8:47 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
AJL wrote:
I've not seen any Google ads pretending that they are a charity.
I think you are confusing a few things. In the service industry
I think you're confusing what I said.
it is a clever and economic move to keep existing clients happy in a
way they buy again.
Or continue to use the product Which is what I said in the part you snipped.
Gain new clients/customers is more expensive by factors. There is
absolutely no need to pretend to be a charity.
Gabriel Coan CRITICIZED Google's "BS" of being only for profit. And I
pointed out in perhaps too many words that Google's profit was a GOOD
THING. Perhaps it was a language thing...
On 9/1/2025 8:47 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
AJL wrote:
I've not seen any Google ads pretending that they are a charity.
I think you are confusing a few things. In the service industry
I think you're confusing what I said.
it is a clever and economic move to keep existing clients happy in a
way they buy again.
Or continue to use the product Which is what I said in the part you
snipped.
Gain new clients/customers is more expensive by factors. There is
absolutely no need to pretend to be a charity.
Gabriel Coan CRITICIZED Google's "BS" of being only for profit. And I
pointed out in perhaps too many words that Google's profit was a GOOD
THING. Perhaps it was a language thing...
The point I'm trying to make here is that Google is pretending that
blocking sideloading apps is "for the user's security". It's not. It's
for selfish and profit driven reasons. I inherently belive that to be anti-consumer. Perhaps if they were honest about it I might feel
differently, but I'm not sure.
On 9/1/25 1:22 PM, AJL wrote:
The point I'm trying to make here is that Google is pretending that
blocking sideloading apps is "for the user's security". It's not.
It's for selfish and profit driven reasons.
I inherently believe that to be anti-consumer.
Perhaps if they were honest about it I might feel differently, but
I'm not sure.
The point I'm trying to make here is that Google is pretending that
blocking sideloading apps is "for the user's security". It's not.
Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
I can see why the hobbyists here are pissed off though...
It's for selfish and profit driven reasons.
Since over 99% (guess) of all Android users don't sideload, I doubt
Google will see that much if any extra profit from the move.
And of course that profit won't come from you. How much do you spend for Google services? Likely zero. Unless you buy Play Store apps and then
most of the profit goes to the developer. You pissed at them too?
I inherently believe that to be anti-consumer.
Well the other few billion Google users apparently disagree. They just
keep sucking up the free Google services...
Perhaps if they were honest about it I might feel differently, but
I'm not sure.
I still don't see anything dishonest. They are apparently being up front
with all the coming changes.
But if you're really pissed, there's several other OS's to change to.
Go for it... 8-O
On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 17:53:37 -0700, AJL wrote :
Personally, I don't see malware as a problem on Android any more than
it's a problem on any other operating system,
including Windows, Linux & iOS.
There are ways to combat malware that don't include forcing every
app developer to be known to Google in intimate ways that Google
doesn't need.
Since over 99% (guess) of all Android users don't sideload, I
doubt Google will see that much if any extra profit from the move.
Good point. I'd bet something like 95% of my thousand apps are not
sideloaded too.
So why is Google really doing it then?
I've never once bought an iOS or Android app in my entire life. But
you knew that. :)
But I'm intelligent. Most people are incredibly stupid. They buy
things that they don't even know are actually better for free.
There's a big difference there.
I still don't see anything dishonest. They are apparently being up
front with all the coming changes.
Well, they're saying they're doing it for "security", aren't they?
The real reason is control.
On 9/2/2025 3:27 PM, Gabriel Coan wrote:
On 9/1/25 1:22 PM, AJL wrote:
The point I'm trying to make here is that Google is pretending that
blocking sideloading apps is "for the user's security". It's not.
Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 154:30:12 |
| Calls: | 12,092 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,679 |