As Android developer verification gets ready to go, a new reason to be worried

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Impact on Android Openness and OSS

  • Many see developer verification and online checks for sideloading as the final erosion of Android’s original “open” promise and a direct threat to its FOSS ecosystem (F-Droid, alternative stores, hobby apps).
  • Some argue this was always the corporate trajectory: use FLOSS as infrastructure, then surround it with proprietary services and controls until it resembles iOS.
  • Others think people are overreacting, noting that ADB installs remain and that similar controls (Play Protect, attestation) already exist.

Alternatives: Linux Phones, AOSP Forks, and iOS

  • Linux phones (Ubuntu Touch, postmarketOS, etc.) are viewed by some as the only real freedom-preserving future, but most agree they are far behind in hardware, UX, and app support, especially banking/government apps.
  • AOSP-based distros like GrapheneOS and /e/OS are seen as the most practical “open-ish” option today, but there is fear Google could kill them by locking bootloaders or tightening attestation.
  • A nontrivial number of privacy‑minded Android users say: if Android becomes a half-baked walled garden, they’ll switch to iOS and at least get Apple’s polish, support, and long updates.
  • Workarounds proposed: two phones (one locked-down for banking, one free), burner Androids for required apps, or moving effort into web apps and Linux phone ecosystems.

Technical and Developer Concerns

  • Questions center on:
    • Whether verification will fail offline.
    • Whether blocked developers can retroactively kill existing installs.
    • How this interacts with Play Integrity / hardware attestation.
  • Some think CRLs and certificates could avoid mandatory online checks; others fear “DEVELOPER_BLOCKED” will be used for political / competitive reasons, not just malware.
  • Hobby and indie devs worry about identity verification costs, friction, and the chilling effect on anonymous or controversial apps.

Regulation, Antitrust, and “End of General-Purpose Computing”

  • Several tie this to antitrust: because Android was marketed as open and faces scrutiny, Google is incentivized to become more Apple-like to dodge future cases.
  • There’s debate over whether courts or legislators are to blame.
  • A strong pessimistic thread claims general-purpose, user-controlled computing is dying: locked-down, attestable stacks serve vendors, banks, and governments—and most end users prefer “safety” over freedom.