252
Haven't generated an APK for months inside Android Studio (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Does anyone here actually support Google's Developer Verification?

I don’t. I’ve put a warning about it in my repo because I’m against policies like sideloading restrictions, forced ID verification.

Curious what other devs here think. Is Play Store still worth the hassle?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Except you have it backwards. The play store is the primary vector. The play store is also pre-installed on Android devices, and even without the whole verification nonsense, you still need to allow a different app repository to install.

Not cleaning their own play store up first means it has nothing to do with what they are claiming. And lets be candid - they have absolutely not.

The analogy is bad specifically because its not reflecting the issues anywhere near accurately. This is closing a window on the second floor while the front door is wide open with a sign that says "Come on in!".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)

    That assumes that Google does not do anything about the appstore and that is objectively not true.

    Is it enough? No ideas, but still, it does not change the need for better endpoint security.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    I firmly disagree. The issue has nothing to do with the endpoint. They have done very little with the play store relative to this massively impactful change to installation practices in creating a walled garden - precisely the reason many, myself included, chose not to go with iOS in the first place.

    So the very idea that this is an endpoint security issue rather than an app store issue is, to me, laughable at best.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    Then we agree to disagree.

    I think we are manly on the same page, but different opinions on priority and that's fine.

    I declare both as a risk.

    From my perspective, with this change, we could make Google directly reliable for malware in the appstore.

    While this started as a very anti consumer change, as long as sideloading stays possible, this is a good measure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    we could make Google directly reliable for malware in the appstore.

    There is no reason they shouldn't be now. Developer verification for the play store is one thing. Developer verification for installing an application on your own device is wholly separate.

    I declare both as a risk.

    And one is substantially higher risk than the other. Namely, the play store. As we recently saw with tens of millions of downloads from just a handful of apps in the play store. Does requiring this developer verification on a device resolve that problem? No. Not even remotely, does it?

    While this started as a very anti consumer change

    As long as it impacts the device use (it does), it still is.

    I'm leaving Android over this. I doubt I'll be the only one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    I'm leaving Android over this. I doubt I'll be the only one.

    Good! I hope alternative mobile operating systems get traction out of this!

    And again, there is no verification need anymore! That is exactly why I am so pissed about this debate in general.

    Is the workflow simple? No. Is the 24hour period comfortable? No. Do I understand why? Yes, but one or two hours would be enough

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Good! I hope alternative mobile operating systems get traction out of this!

    We'll see. The plan for now is a tcl flip with hotspot and a clamshell linux box in my pocket.

    And again, there is no verification need anymore!

    Please read the very first sentence in that slide. Then read through those steps again (and look at the steps inside of those steps).

    Yes, there is a need still, or there are a series of annoying, anti-consumer steps involved, in an effort to have a walled garden.

    Android and Google are not worth supporting over this. Again, not dealing with the play store first and thoroughly tells me this has nothing to do with security. If it did, they wouldn't be going this route.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I had a good look at the process. And yes it is not very convenient and or course it is not just to protect users, that is a secondary marketing effect.

    I completely lost this view after all those heated debates, thanks.

    As long as people claim that F-Droid will stop working and other stuff, based on the initial plans, I classify most of the debate as fear mongering .

    And good luck and fun with your new setup. I still have an original OpenMoko, to bad GSM is dead here.

    And, thanks for the debate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Yeah I'm not debating that there is fear mongering about this at all, just - as you noted - this is not about protecting users. Thats a farce.

    This is about Google trying to close up their ecosystem, device first. That is the issue I take with this whole situation, its a clear step in that direction being marketed as something it decidedly is not.

    And I think Android users should recognize what it actually is, and try to find a different option than Apple or Google going forward.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent