Android developer verification: Balancing openness and choice with safety

News and insights on the Android platform, developer tools, and events.

Android Developers Blog

The part in the flow where you select between allowing app installs for 7 days or forever is a glimpse into the future. That toggle shows the thought process that's going on at Google.

I can bet that a few versions down the line, the "Not recommended" option of allowing installs indefinitely will become so not recommended that they'll remove it outright. Then shrink the 7 day window to 3 days or less. Or only give users one allowed attempt at installing an app, after which it's another 24 hour waiting period for you. Then ask the user to verify themselves as a developer if they want to install whatever they want. Whatever helps them turn people away from alternatives and shrink the odds of someone dislodging their monopoly, they will do. Anything to drive people to Google Play only.

Pay verification fee to continue
so Apple then? They require you to pay the $99 yearly fee to sideload for more than 7 days

Apple was clear that they were offering the safety of a walled garden from the start.

Apple didn't lie about supporting a user's freedom to run anything they like, only to execute a rug pull after they successfully drove the other open options out of the marketplace.

If Google actually takes away the ability to run unsigned code, my next phone will be an iPhone. And I rarely even run unsigned code.

Honestly, it might finally result in me fully exiting the Google ecosystem.

> If Google actually takes away the ability to run unsigned code, my next phone will be an iPhone. And I rarely even run unsigned code.

Same here. If I must be in a walled garden, then I will choose the better kept garden and it sure as hell isn't one of Google's crappy platforms.

The only reason to put up with the shittiness of Android is freedom. The same freedom they keep eroding with their constant, never ending attempts to force remote attestation and sideloading limits.

GrapheneOS is the last hope for Android as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully Google won't find ways to screw that up.

> it might finally result in me fully exiting the Google ecosystem

Don't wait for them to push you away. Start exiting now. Setting up mail on my own domain and distancing myself from gmail is one of the best things I've ever done. Highly recommended.

I've noticed with GrapheneOS, that more recent builds are exhibiting weird issues. This isn't their fault, it's upstream ASOP issues. For example, just in the last few weeks:

* The date has now gone missing from my lockscreen, only showing the time.

* I can no longer see signal strength on my phone for mobile, if wiki is off. I turn wifi on, and now I can. I use a larger font, but it used to be just fine.

There are all sorts of little changes like this I've noticed recently.

It makes me wonder if Google is slowly mangling default ASOP so projects like GrapheneOS will have a crappier daily build experience.

And GrapheneOS doesn't have time to manage features changes like this, they focus on their key security improvements and fixes. If Google is doing this on purpose, it has real potential to seriously degrade ASOP as usable without lots of fixes and changes.

They already rug-pulled security updates or whatever it was a few months back.

And it really seems like the sort of sneaky, underhanded way Google would handle things.

Odd, I don't have those issues (date is on the lock screen, network signal strength when wifi is off is there). Played around with font settings but that changed nothing. Up to date stable version of Graphene on an 8a. Are these beta versions? Or maybe it's phone dependent.

Do you have 'Receive security preview updates' on?

Google stopped publishing any info about security updates until (I think) quarterlies come out. GrapheneOS had to sign some sort of non-disclosure for them, in order to roll them into updates.

If you don't have that on, then you're not fully up to date with security updates. This could be the difference.

> GrapheneOS had to sign some sort of non-disclosure for them, in order to roll them into updates.

So doesn't this mean GrapheneOS is effectively controlled by Google now?

Also, how is keeping anything secret under NDA possible at all if you want to know what's in a security update and be actually able to build that update yourself from source?

Controlled? No. It's about security updates being patched before disclosure.

That said. it is indeed annoying, and there was a lot of uproar when it happened.

For the nuance of it, I'd suggest GrapheneOS docs, you'll get more accurate info.

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-p...

GrapheneOS security preview releases - GrapheneOS Discussion Forum

GrapheneOS discussion forum

GrapheneOS Discussion Forum