this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
225 points (100.0% liked)

Open Source

48004 readers
120 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 88 points 6 days ago

I think if Google (or Apple for that matter) wants to play this game, then everyone from the reviewer to the CEO should be held legally responsible when malware ends up not only verified but distributed by them. And by legally I mean also as accessory to the crime.

[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 77 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Continue publishing app freely, do not verify yourself

Fuck google

[–] jksalcedo@lemmy.ml 23 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

I have getgoogleoff.me email domain 👍🏼

edit: from disroot

[–] erictile@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Why would you want to pleasure them?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] artyom@piefed.social 24 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Is Android Studio forcing you to register?

Does anyone here actually support Google's Developer Verification?

At best some are indifferent but I've never heard of anyone who actively supports this.

Is Play Store still worth the hassle i?

Never has been 🔫

[–] forbiddencherry@lemmy.today 23 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I paid the fee for a dev account near the beginning of Android. Haven't had any apps published in over a decade, but from what I understand my account is grandfathered in so I don't have to jump through as many hoops to get something published if I chose to, compared to newer accounts. Anyhow, since I have an account I suppose I'm unaffected by this decision. Still, it goes against the original spirit of Android as a free and developer-centric platform and I condemn it.

[–] jksalcedo@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I think you still need to register/verify since it will require a valid ID and app IDs (package names).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] inari@piefed.zip 10 points 6 days ago

If I were a mobile dev I'd make GTK apps for Linux phones and use Pixiewood to create Android builds:

https://github.com/sp1ritCS/gtk-android-builder

[–] lil_tank@hexbear.net 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Is Play Store still worth the hassle?

If you're a for-profit business yeah more or less, if not hell no just publish on f-droid or something

[–] Little1Lost@gehirneimer.de 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

f-droid needs the app to be foss. maybe something like codebergXobtainium will work for closed source. There is also itch.io with the inofficial mitch client which could be worth a upload pipeline but i dont know

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

you can always just host your own fdroid repo, there's nothing magical about it and it's trivial for users to add it to their client.

[–] Remy@lemmy.today 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Are there any relevant/common reason to keep an app closed source if its NOT for profit?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Does that mean this app won't be available on app store, but can be installed from other places? I know there are on going changes regarding this topic, but I'm not fully informed. And researching will bring probably ton of Ai generated articles I'm not willing to look into. Could F-Droid still be used on a "regular" Android?

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 27 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What it means can be read, for example, in Detail here: https://keepandroidopen.org/en/

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Holy mother of duck! This is worse than I thought. I assume custom firmware like LineageOS or e/OS don't have these restrictions. But most people have stock Android off course.

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

This rules are part of and enforced by the google play framework, so I would assume that as soon as Google Play and/or Google Play Services are installed on Lineage or other custom roms that then the same limitations come in effect. This is only an assuption by me, based on how I understand it, so I may be, and I hope that I am, very wrong.

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There is an alternative service called microG, an Open Source alternative to Google libraries to replace Google Play Services in example. This makes it possible to use the Play Store without Googles proprietary stuff. However I don't know how compatible it is, but it is big part of alternative custom roms to replace Google as much as possible. I don't use the Play Store, so cannot say first hand how good it works. More info on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroG .

Maybe this new policy and stuff could affect this alternative implementation of Google Services?

[–] Einskjaldi@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

They've been continually removing things from that and making actual Google stuff more required. To be fair, they had a good reason because it let them get around the carriers never updating anything.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lime@feddit.nu 19 points 6 days ago (1 children)

they're going to make it more difficult too. you basically need to enable dev mode a second time, then for every application that can install ap, you need to re-approve then wait 24 hours.

[–] Phantaloons@piefed.zip 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Fuck that, I'll stay unverified/nogapps. They can keep their malware.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›