Google Will Require Developer Verification

I genuinely don't really get it. If someone tells me "here is an app I wrote, it is not open source, I won't tell you who I am and you need to sideload it", I most definitely won't install it. Who would do that?

If it is open source, then I can build and install it myself. If the developer gets verified, then I can sideload it.

I totally agree that device manufacturers should be forced by law to make it possible to run an alternative OS like GrapheneOS, but this topic gets virtually no attention. Whereas everybody seems very pissed about the sideloading story.

Then Apple and google will start a campaign to kill it within a second.

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Google should be forced by law to allow unverified developers on their own OS, but that it would not be possible to have a law making it mandatory to allow alternative OSes?

I mean if they are above the law, they are above the law. No need to discuss anything. If they are not, then we can discuss what's best for the users. And it is my opinion that allowing alternative OSes is better for the users than allowing sideloading of unverified apps.

> If it is open source, then I can build and install it myself. If the developer gets verified, then I can sideload it.

Although that might be true for you it's very much false for 99% of Android's user base. Android is a nightmare to compile for, I love to compile on linux/win/bsd but I recall only once or twice compiling Android projects and would do everything to avoid that mess in the future.

For all intents and purposes, we should accept that Android users must be able to install pre-compiled open source software.

In sane operating environments there's the option of reproducible builds, which guarantee that a particular binary comes from a particular source, if Google cared about Android users, they would make that available for Android too.

> I totally agree that device manufacturers should be forced by law to make it possible to run an alternative OS like GrapheneOS.

There's some incongruity here - if users could install any other OS on their phones we wouldn't be having this conversation because 1. nobody would care about side-loading being unavailable and 2. Google would never limit it in the first place due to competitive forces.

In other words, installing other OSes is a high-value goal and it makes sense to use every occasion to put pressure on Google to move in that direction - and there is no better occasion than pushing for open sideloading.

It should be abundantly clear that if you can't get open sideloading you will never get open OS install.

> Although that might be true for you it's very much false for 99% of Android's user base.

But 99% of the Android's user base doesn't want to sideload (and they shouldn't).

> Android is a nightmare to compile for

I don't know when was the last time you tried compiling for Android, but in the last decade it has been a matter of running `./gradlew build`. If this doesn't work, then the project you are trying to build is badly structured.

> For all intents and purposes, we should accept that Android users must be able to install pre-compiled open source software.

And they are: 99% of Android users install apps from the Play Store, and it works just fine.

> In sane operating environments there's the option of reproducible builds, which guarantee that a particular binary comes from a particular source, if Google cared about Android users, they would make that available for Android too.

It's simply harder than you make it sound, and it only works for open source software (how do you reproduce a build for which you don't have access to the sources?).

> nobody would care about side-loading being unavailable

Sideloading is not becoming unavailable! It will just require being a verified developer if you want to sideload on a Google-certified Android phone. If you actually care, there are enough possibilities to install an alternative OS (though I would recommend GrapheneOS). And if for some reason it's not an option but you still care, you can build the app from source and install it on your Google Android.

> In other words, installing other OSes is a high-value goal and it makes sense to use every occasion to put pressure on Google to move in that direction - and there is no better occasion than pushing for open sideloading.

My point is that this makes no sense! Pushing for unverified sideloading makes strictly nothing for alternative OSes. Let me repeat that: it strictly doesn't help. Alternative OSes are not affected by this new Google policy. They are affected by other issues, but nobody talks about them.

> It should be abundantly clear that if you can't get open sideloading you will never get open OS install.

I think you do not understand how alternative OSes work, because this is plain wrong.

And don't get me wrong: I think we are on the same side. I don't like monopolies. I just feel like fighting against the verified sideloading on Google Android is just completely missing the point.

> But 99% of the Android's user base doesn't want to sideload (and they shouldn't).

Never say never. It's a matter of principle - giving in an inch can and will get your head chewed up. As in "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further" [1]

> I think you do not understand how alternative OSes work, because this is plain wrong.

I do. With proper pressure Google can stop manufacturers from dragging their feet. Say if Android required an unlocked bootloader and a standard API BSP.

> I don't like monopolies.

And they aren't going to de-monopolize themselves. [2]

[1] Darth Android https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/01/fulu/#i-am-altering-the-d...

[2] They brick you because they can https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/24/record-scratch/#autoenshi...

> It's a matter of principle

My principle is that I fight for things that bring something, not for the sake of fighting :-).

> I do. With proper pressure Google can stop manufacturers from dragging their feet. Say if Android required an unlocked bootloader and a standard API BSP.

I don't follow. How would having an unlocked bootloader prevent alternative OSes?