Fuck Android Developer Verification Program

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Google’s new Android Developer Verification Program and tougher Play Store rules are being criticized as hostile to indie developers, raising barriers like mandatory ID checks, home address disclosure, and a requirement to recruit 12 active testers over 14 days before public release. Many argue these measures don’t meaningfully improve security or app quality but instead centralize control over software distribution, undermine sideloading, and make Android feel as closed as Apple’s ecosystem. Alternatives such as PWAs, F-Droid, and Linux-based phones are mentioned, but are seen as either limited, harder to use, or too niche to replace mainstream app stores.

Overall sentiment about Android Developer Verification Program

  • Many developers describe the new program and Play Store rules as hostile to indie and hobby developers.
  • Complaints center on excessive friction: verification hoops, arbitrary gating, and opaque enforcement.
  • Some argue the real goal is centralizing control and entrenching the app‑store duopoly rather than security.

Publishing hurdles and new requirements

  • Individuals (non‑business) must now recruit ~12 testers who all opt into a closed test and keep the app installed for 14 consecutive days before public release.
  • This is viewed as impractical, especially for solo devs with small networks; some consider hiring click‑workers but fear bans.
  • Developers must submit government ID, address, and sometimes bank statements to complete verification.
  • There is confusion about sideloading: some say you cannot distribute from GitHub “without Google’s approval”; others say you still can, but first‑time sideloading in several countries now incurs a 24‑hour wait. The exact policy impact is unclear.

Account closures and maintenance burden

  • Multiple reports of Play Developer accounts being closed for “inactivity,” even with published apps.
  • Developers feel there is no concept of a “finished” app; they’re forced to ship periodic updates (e.g., target API bumps) to avoid removal.
  • Some lost old YouTube or app data when accounts were terminated, with no robust recovery path and very poor support.
  • One person managed to get an account reinstated only by using a separate active developer account and repeatedly fighting an automated support loop.

Privacy, data, and spam concerns

  • Several are uncomfortable handing over ID and home address for small or free apps.
  • In some jurisdictions, developers’ physical addresses are shown publicly on app pages.
  • Banned or closed accounts still receive promotional emails; unsubscribing can be impossible without account access, which some claim is legally dubious.

Comparisons with Apple

  • Apple’s $99/year fee is seen as expensive but at least predictable and straightforward compared to Google’s maze of verification plus the 12‑tester gate.
  • Some who once chose Android as the “open” option now say Android has become worse than Apple in practice.

Alternatives: PWAs, F‑Droid, other OSes

  • Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) are discussed as a partial escape: they work well on Android for many CRUD‑style apps and can use local file APIs, though with UX annoyances and weaker support on some browsers/platforms.
  • Firefox PWA support exists on Android but not desktop; overall PWA support on Android has reportedly regressed (harder “Install” UX).
  • F‑Droid is suggested but limited to open‑source apps and a niche user base; private repos have little discovery.
  • Some advocate GNU/Linux phones or de‑Googled Android, but acknowledge ecosystem and usability challenges.

Security, quality control, and app‑store health

  • Defenders of Google’s policies argue that:
    • Forcing periodic rebuilds and higher target API levels helps security and compatibility.
    • Requiring ongoing effort reduces abandoned and duplicate apps, improving store quality.
  • Critics respond that:
    • API churn that breaks stable apps is unreasonable; long‑lived APIs (like classic POSIX/Win32) show another path.
    • Great but “finished” apps risk disappearing solely because teams disbanded.
    • Google still leaves obvious malware and scam apps up for long periods despite these controls.

Broader power, freedom, and antitrust themes

  • Several see this as part of a larger erosion of user and developer freedom:
    • Needing “permission” to publish or install software on personal devices.
    • Barriers that resemble censorship infrastructure (e.g., governments pressuring app stores to remove sensitive apps).
  • Some call for EU and US antitrust or competition action, arguing that:
    • The verification program arose right after regulators pushed for alternative app stores.
    • Extending Play‑level identity requirements to other stores looks anti‑competitive.
  • Others push the web/browser as the last broadly open platform, while noting that major browsers are themselves largely controlled by Google and Apple, and Firefox compatibility is often neglected.

Workarounds and unintended consequences

  • Communities and apps have formed where people mutually install each other’s apps to satisfy the 12‑tester/14‑day rule, undermining any real security value.
  • Using services like Obtainium or GitHub releases with tokens is mentioned as a way to bypass the Play Store for some users.
  • Several developers have simply abandoned Android, pulled their apps, or now target only iOS, desktop, or the web.