Android Developer Verification

(android-developers.googleblog.com)

108 points | by ingve 2 hours ago

24 comments

  • mrtksn 1 hour ago
    The Android verification is such a broken experience. Recently I decided to purchase a dev account for my company, so far:

    1) Provided my company DUNS number etc. once to create the payment profile. I did this some times ago, don’t remember the details but it was an involved verification process and it is marked as verified business payment profile.

    2) Later on the payment step verified myself with a passport and bank statement to be able to actually pay with a proper HSBC bank card. Not shady pre-paid card or something, those are not accepted anyway.

    3) After I paid I was told that now I need to verify my identity once more but this time with the passport and the incorporation certificate or some other company document.

    fingers crossed that in few days it will be verified. While waiting, it tells me that there are still website and email verification to do once the previous step is done. I already verified my e-mail a few times before paying.

    It’s painful, slow and annoying because if you fail at a step(i.e. needs verification that takes days and you are told about it at the payment step) you have to start again with the forms.

    I just remembered why I never use Android. It seems like no one owns the process and as a result you get unpolished shitty experience that fulfills the requirements of god knows how many people who work in the same company but don’t talk to each other.

    • fc417fc802 10 minutes ago
      If this is a business account why do they want your passport? And why are you paying with a personal bank card rather than a business one? Or do I misunderstand?
    • hnburnsy 44 minutes ago
      Can you pay with Google Play GC or Google Play points, and if not, why not?
      • mrtksn 39 minutes ago
        I believe you can’t. BTW Apple allows you to pay for a developer account with in app purchase from the developer app on your iPhone. Still has limitations and you may be rejected depending on your payment method and some other factors but even the fact that it’s possible makes it 1000 better than Google’s way of handling it.
    • mcsniff 1 hour ago
      What you're describing is not "broken", it's the process and it appears it hasn't even failed for you.

      My experience with getting a verified "business" developer account from Google mirrors the experience as getting one from Apple, except it's a one-time fee and much less than Apple.

      Yes there are hoops to jump through, identification usually requires some hoops, but pretty it's straightforward. I am not commenting on the requirements of these hoops, yes, it's BS that they exist but it's their platform so it's their rules.

      What type of "experience" are you expecting to have anyway?

      • mrtksn 1 hour ago
        With Apple I filled the forms, accepted the agreements, entered the DUNS and paid with a card on my name and that was it.

        How does that mirror uploading my passport many times, entering company details many times, typing my e-mail and phone numbers many times both because I had to start over and because I was asked many times even if I provided these some steps back? Now I paid and waiting, hopefully I will later be verifying my e-mail address or something that I verified a few times prior.

        > What type of "experience" are you expecting to have anyway?

        The Apple experience. An experience that is well thought and streamlined, that doesn’t keep me entering the same information over and over again. I don’t mind paying a little more for well designed products. The $75 difference is nothing to justify this charade, I don’t think that that Google was short of $75 and designed this low quality experience, I think it’s engraver in their DNA.

      • debazel 42 minutes ago
        > What type of "experience" are you expecting to have anyway?

        Being told upfront what is required to complete the process so you don't have to start over again multiple times?

  • ethagnawl 1 hour ago
    What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care?

    I've been using Android since 2010 because it was open in ways that the Apple ecosystem wasn't. I do not want this and imagine hardly any other power users (for lack of a better term) do. I'm already using a mostly deGoogled device but this really seals the deal. I have been longing for a true Linux phone for years and now seems like a good time to get serious about the search and migration plan.

    • JLCarveth 1 hour ago
      Being able to side load apps was why I switched to android 10 years ago
      • ux266478 1 hour ago
        Yeah. Computing freedom to have a root shell and do as I please is the entire reason I put up with Android. Google is positioning Android to just be nothing more than a worse iOS. There's pretty much no point to it anymore.
      • matheusmoreira 33 minutes ago
        Same. If Google does this, my next phone will be an iPhone. Freedom is the only reason to put up with Android's shittiness. If they turn it into a walled garden, then we'll choose the better kept garden and it sure as hell isn't Google's.
    • cosmotic 1 hour ago
      Rounded to the nearest percent, I'd guess power users make up 0% of android user base.
    • marcprux 14 minutes ago
      > What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care?

      2%, according to the keepandroidopen.org poll[^1]

      [^1] https://techhub.social/@keepandroidopen/116251892296272830

      • akerl_ 6 minutes ago
        Do we think that maybe the 3,732 people who responded to a poll on Mastodon by an account centered around one side of this disagreement might potentially not be a representative sample of all Android users?
      • satvikpendem 4 minutes ago
        Sampling bias.
    • motbus3 1 hour ago
      But but but it is for your security! You need to be protected!

      Android isn't open source for a while. They started by pushing device certification which crippled any abilities of OEMs to make a better framework. Then they took many of the opensource packages out of android and redistributed as applications that they controlled via play services.

      Then they made it harder to publish packages and created tons of rules that they can arbitrarily decide to cut ties with you or remove your remuneration.

      What they are effectively doing now is to remove any ability of individual developers to push applications. Some will say the costs ain't that high, but (1) maybe not in USD dollars for Americans and (2) both Google and Apple will push those numbers way up high soon.

      Even if that is not the case, if you don't agree with anything and you decide to have your own version of your family wiki, messenger or anything, they will be able to tell the authorities about it.

      This is insane....

    • beacon294 1 hour ago
      You were wrong at percentage. The question is what count would want this.
    • charcircuit 1 hour ago
      People don't want it until they've been scammed. Then they'll complain why you didn't save them.
      • cubefox 1 hour ago
        Do people complain about being scammed with Windows or macOS? Apparently not. So they probably also don't complain about Android. The security seems more an excuse to become more closed. Like iOS.
        • DashAnimal 49 minutes ago
          I don't necessarily like the idea of a company wiping their hands clean and saying "well - not our problem!" either though.

          Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this - they should be proactively helping their most vulnerable users. That is the "do no evil" motto.

          I don't know enough to say whether this method is the right approach however.

          • rcMgD2BwE72F 6 minutes ago
            >Companies shouldn't wait to solve issues like this

            Unless you built your house yourself, you should expect the construction company to be responsible for verifying the identities of anyone entering your house. Asking for a passport and a one time payment, just in case someone ringing the bell may not be a friend.

            That should be proactively helping you in case you're a vulnerable person. Not checking anyone once would be evil, right? You build, you check and charge before letting someone in. Who can trust a homeowner? They, and you, could well be vulnerable.

            I can't think of a better approach.

            • akerl_ 2 minutes ago
              I lived in an apartment building, and one of the upsides was that the building had a security system and a front desk that helped control who could be wandering down my hall.
    • misir 1 hour ago
      > What % of Android users actually want this? Do they know or care?

      Bold of you assuming they're doing for users. It's fear-mongering at its finest - using the threat of security to install more control that has little to no protection against the said threats.

      Now you might say it's going to raise the bar for the scammers, but nobody is going to be spending time on writing scam or malware for a few bucks. When the reward is high, they can just pay out already verified developers to distribute their builds under their accounts, or just find a workaround (fake ids?) which could be still way cheaper than the potential revenue potential of a successful attack. It's just an inconvenience that didn't existed before.

      This is just a policy directly targeting the legit developers distributing apps to work around some of the platform's limitations (ie. uncrappifying youtube). They were previously free to share the workarounds they've developed for themselves since it was just as easy as sharing your APK. Now with added threat of losing your developer account and probably being perma-banned from google, those devs are less likely to continue distributing their workarounds.

    • WarmWash 47 minutes ago
      It's not about users, it's about a single judges idiotic ruling that Google play store is a monopoly, and the Apple app store is not.

      Different judge you say? You're right. But when Google in their appeal asked the judge why the app store isn't a monopoly, the judge told Google with a straight face

      "You can't be anti-competitive if you have no competitors."

      Google took note.

    • throwaway85825 1 hour ago
      It would be good if there was less malware and outright scams in the play store but that's really orthogonal to the developer verification issue.
  • glenstein 27 minutes ago
    Don't love it but (1) it's addressing a serious problem and I'm not sure what the alternative is and (2) if you all remember the starting place, it was staggeringly, dramatically worse, practically a death sentence for F-Droid and seemingly testing the waters for if they could simply power through and do it despite objection.

    This is a major course correction that doesn't kill F-Droid. A one time 24 hour hoop to jump through and then never again is monumentally better than losing F-Droid forever.

    • supern0va 16 minutes ago
      Is it a serious problem that you can run whatever software you want on your computer? Should we make it so that no one can do that without permission to protect them?

      I recommend Cory Doctorow's talk on why this is a serious problem for society:

      https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_War_on_General_Com...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

    • Zak 5 minutes ago
      It's pretending to address a serious issue while giving Google significant power to limit distribution of apps Google doesn't like, which could sometimes include legal apps that certain governments don't like such as the recently famous ICEBlock.

      Google says they don't intend to do that, but even if I believe that's their current intention, they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future. Incentives predict outcomes more reliably than intentions.

      I say it's pretending because scammers are good at shifting tactics. If convincing users to install malware ceases to be the path of least resistance, they'll convince users to install legitimate remote access utilities, hand over credentials directly, or some other scheme I haven't thought up because I'm not a scammer.

    • snackbroken 18 minutes ago
      "Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man.

      You take a step forward.

      He takes a step back.

      "Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man.

    • userbinator 23 minutes ago
      It's only a "serious problem" because they want you to think it is.
  • bstsb 2 hours ago
    from https://9to5google.com/2026/03/30/android-developer-verifier... -

    > Starting in April, Android Developer Verifier will be installed on devices.

    so they're rolling out a system app that will call home to check whether any sideloaded apps have been "verified" with the developer's government ID? and this process will happen regardless of whether the user has enabled the "advanced flow" in Developer settings?

    • birdsongs 2 hours ago
      Good of a reason as any to go google-less on my Graphene pixel, I guess. But man it sucks, mostly for all the people who can't. I can manage my financials and 2FA from my laptop, that was my last real reason to have google play installed, but it's just a convenience. (I know it's mandatory for others.)

      I wonder how that sys app will be handled in GrapheneOS's google play sandbox?

      • subscribed 1 hour ago
        It'll probably always confirm it's been verified.

        GOS have already said users won't be impacted by this clampdown.

  • rvnx 1 hour ago
    Hey boss: “40M users are running a cracked version of YouTube premium on mobile, what can we do ?”
  • m132 24 minutes ago
    Is there any information about how the "advanced flow" will be implemented? According to keepandroidopen.org, this is going to be handled by Google Play Services. Does it mean it will be automatically installed via the silent GMS update mechanism and I should root my devices and remove GMS altogether if I don't want this?
  • userbinator 24 minutes ago
    Older Androids which are fully rootable and unbrickable are cheap (maybe even monetarily free) and will let you continue to have freedom despite what Google wants.

    "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

  • nout 1 hour ago
    That's seriously horrible. There are 5+ open source android apps that I use and want to continue using that are not available on Play Store, but rather through alternative stores (like Zapstore, Obtainium).

    If I get a phone with preinstalled Graphene OS (like the upcoming Motorola phone), then does it avoid this stupidity? Or even with Graphene it prevents me from installing apks?

    • ekianjo 34 minutes ago
      Graphene allows APKs
  • throwaway85825 1 hour ago
    A 'safe' app store would promote and prioritize open source apps compiled on public auditable runners.
    • pxc 39 minutes ago
      F-Droid is in fact what an app store concerned about user safety looks like. Nobody gets hoodwinked into installing apps that track them or sell their data or otherwise abuse them on F-Droid.
  • __fst__ 55 minutes ago
    Let everyone who wants it be safe using the Google App Store. But please let me do stupid/experimental things with my phone.
  • hirako2000 1 hour ago
    The sad thing is only a tiny minority of android users side load apps. The rest will feel their phone is one step more secure.
  • thomasgeelens 29 minutes ago
    oh so I'm not the only one, always believed Apple was the hard ass but I've been having a better experience with them.
  • bossyTeacher 1 hour ago
    "However, our recent analysis found over 90 times more malware from sideloaded sources than on Google Play."

    Has anyone seen the report for that analysis. I bet most people here would love to read it too.

    • Macha 1 hour ago
      I mean, I’m sure “Fortnite with infinite vbucks.apk” has a much worse malware rate than the play store, but I’m almost certain that fdroid has a lower malware rate than the play store and I honestly suspect even “random apks off github” might have a similar rate to the play store
  • 0xbadcafebee 55 minutes ago
    tl;dr how to install an app from unverified developer ("advanced flow")

      1. enable developer mode
      2. confirm you aren't being coached
      3. restart your phone and reauthenticate
      4. come back after 24 hours and unlock device
      5. install app from unverified developer, option of enabling for 7 days or indefinitely
    
    This is apparently a one-time process. Advanced flow for users launches globally August 2026. Verification requirement kicks in September 2026.

    Personally I am hopeful that people work toward a completely new, non-Android OS. 15 GB of space on my phone, and 1.5 GB of RAM, is dedicated to Android OS alone. This design, and the control this company (and the mobile providers, and device manufacturers) have over the mobile world, is ridiculous. Let's start over.

    • robotnikman 26 minutes ago
      >15 GB of space on my phone, and 1.5 GB of RAM, is dedicated to Android OS alone

      The original Droid phone I used had only 256mb of memory, and could still multitask and run multiple apps at once with that limited memory. Its crazy how bloated things have become over the years.

  • stuaxo 2 hours ago
    Sorry, but absolutely not.

    I stuck with Android for years as a dev as I once did Android apps and occasionally do tinker.

    This is my last Android phone and Jolla is my next phone.

    • birdsongs 2 hours ago
      I really want to like the concept of Jolla / a European mobile alternative but I see no reason why they're closed source SW in 2026. Open source everything, let the community help develop, and sell your hardware (and support/deals for B2B).

      A single for-profit company owning the full HW and SW stack? My trust in companies lately is at a lifetime low. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    • amarant 1 hour ago
      Ooh, are you gonna go for their Ubuntu touch alternative, or their own OS?
  • krick 42 minutes ago
    So, anyway, how do we make sure that our phones don't turn into a pumpkin on a set date? I suppose it's all shit long term, but at the very least I don't want to be forced to look for a solution before I need a new phone. So, what do you do? Can you just disable android updates somehow and it will solve the issue? Or it is already a ticking bomb that will be activated on the set date no matter what?
    • userbinator 21 minutes ago
      Root and kill everything that could be used to remotely install software without your consent.
  • hnburnsy 1 hour ago
    What Android versions is this applicable to?
  • Fordec 2 hours ago
    Yeah, no, going back to web native. Keep your verification and your 20%.
  • kayson 1 hour ago
    > our recent analysis found over 90 times more malware from sideloaded sources than on Google Play

    So what's the solution then? At the same time, I'm curious how this ends up happening to end users. Enabling unknown sources is trivial in a way (it's just one check box and if you try to install an APK from, say, Firefox, it'll take you right there), but how are people even getting to that point??

  • parrellel 2 hours ago
    Yeah, no. No one needs your spyware.
  • andrepd 2 hours ago
    I don't see a way out of this except government regulation. The EU has the most motivation to do it, as a huge economic bloc with a lot of motivation right now to become as independent from the US as possible.

    I guess I can sort of manage to keep my head above water and keep buying secondhand phones which I unlock and install a supported version of LineageOS. But it's cumbersome, it gets more difficult and more restrictive every time. And I literally have a doctorate in computers for crying out loud! Is there any hope for Granny? For a kid? For >99% of people? Of course not.

    This is so clearly a matter for government oversight: prevent abuse, monopolies, protect the citizen's safety, rights, welfare, etc. It's not reasonable to expect consumers to figure out if the meat they buy is tainted, just as it's not to figure out if their phone spies on them, manipulates information, or sells their data (especially when there's a duopoly). That's why we have laws and food inspectors, paid for by the public, working for the public. Same thing with digital rights.

    • pzo 2 hours ago
      > I don't see a way out of this except government regulation.

      IMHO governments are partially behind those initiatives so they are unlikely to regulate themself- reason in last few years they intensified work on Digital ID, Age Verification, Chat control, KYC, etc.

      • nout 1 hour ago
        EU is schizophrenic enough that it often produces very conflicting directions, opinions and policies.

        One thing EU loves is regulation though, so I expect they will introduce preemptive regulations to enforce strict ID verification as well as regulations to fine big companies for breaching user privacy with strict ID verification policies.

      • lokar 1 hour ago
        For the limits on side-loading in particular, there are a few southeast asian nations (I can't recall, Vietnam? Thailand?) where almost all internet access is via Android, including banking. And social engineering fraud, where they call someone up, pretend to be the bank, and get them to side-load malware, has become a major financial, and political problem.

        AIUI, they have told Google to find a fix, or else.

        • pzo 1 hour ago
          > pretend to be the bank, and get them to side-load malware, has become a major financial, and political problem.

          I been living in SE Asia for few years each in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and really didn't notice that this is supposed to be like major political problem.

          'Fraud' is the same smoke screen and excuse as 'protect the children from social media or pedophiles'.

          • lokar 1 hour ago
            I can't find it now, but the article I read seemed to say that the gov was specifically upset about the banking issue, and might tell the banks they can't allow apps anymore.
      • zrm 2 hours ago
        There are different governments and different subdivisions within any given government. The only thing you need to get a government that had been pushing Chat Control to do some trust busting is to get more votes.
    • seanalltogether 1 hour ago
      "This is so clearly a matter for government oversight: prevent abuse, protect the citizen's safety, rights, welfare, etc. It's not reasonable to expect consumers to figure out if the meat they buy is tainted, just as it's not to figure out if the APPS THEY INSTALL spies on them, manipulates information, or sells their data"

      Do you see how quickly that argument can be flipped to support what google is doing here? Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if half the reason to to lock down phones is because governments keep pressuring them to do so.

    • EmbarrassedHelp 1 hour ago
      I'm wondering if the EU is complicit in this somehow, despite claiming that they want to fight back against tech companies.

      The EU Commission is currently pushing the shitty EU Identity Wallet for mandatory age verification, and it requires GooglePlay Services to be installed for "anti-tampering". That also means a ban on non official versions of Android like LineageOS and GrapheneOS.

    • user34283 1 hour ago
      You'd think in 2026 regulators would finally step up their game to break up the mobile app distribution duopoly.

      And Google thinks it can pull this ridiculous stunt.

    • retrodaredevil 1 hour ago
      The thing is, the EU needs to be able to not only sell that the regulation they propose is good to the public, but also not piss off the US administration.

      Most people are too non-technical to understand why this is a bad thing even when it's explained to them. Plus, whatever administration is in power in the US has a lot of influence.

      Trump has already said that he wouldn't tolerate regulation that affects American companies [1], painting regulation that happens in another country as something that will affect US citizens. (I mean if you use the GDPR as an example, it's not wrong. Think of cookie pop ups while browsing the web in the US)

      I would like the the EU would go harder with their regulations, because it usually results in other countries or states following their lead, but I dont see that happening. Regulation has been painted as "bad", and we have at least 3 more years until that changes.

      [1] https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/12/tech/us-eu-tech-regulation-fi...

  • 56745742597 2 hours ago
    [dead]
  • TGower 1 hour ago
    It really seems like they are doing a lot to appease the tiny minority of us power users, adb load unaffected, one time toggle in settings to opt out, no change to alternative app stores as long as the apk was built by a verified developer. Crazy how harsh the sentiment is here, there are real people being harmed by scam apps intercepting sms one time codes and this will reduce the rate of that happening. It's not like we can't sideload anymore, though a lot of comments here seem to be implying otherwise.
    • kcb 1 hour ago
      Because the initial announcement included none of that... it wasn't addressed at all until the harsh sentiment.
      • TGower 1 hour ago
        Then shouldn't we celebrate the victory, drop it, and move on?
        • kcb 1 hour ago
          Victory is my device and its OS working the same way it always worked and the way it worked when I bought it.
          • TGower 49 minutes ago
            Just don't install the OS updates then.
    • hnburnsy 50 minutes ago
      Because this is a glide path to what they really want, look at Apple and running unsigned apps on your Mac, how it started, simple right click, how is it going, near impossible.
      • selectively 8 minutes ago
        How it started: almost everything is signed, even pirated apps

        How it's going: almost everything is signed, even pirated apps.

        ????

    • brnt 1 hour ago
      Those scam apps largely are installed from the Play store. Let them fix that first.
      • TGower 1 hour ago
        Really, there are apps that will intercept and exfiltrate your bank one time code sms that are just sitting on the play store? First I'm hearing of this, what's the name of one?
      • selectively 4 minutes ago
        Your post is an outright lie.