Google is tightening Android app security by requiring all developers >(whether they publish on the Play Store or sideload apps) to verify their >identities.
Starting in 2026, only apps from verified developers will be installable on >most certified Android devices
Google is tightening Android app security by requiring all developers >>(whether they publish on the Play Store or sideload apps) to verify their >>identities.
Starting in 2026, only apps from verified developers will be installable on >>most certified Android devices
I wonder if this Amazon Fire HD10 tablet I'm posting with is a certified
Android device in Google's opinion? Because I side loaded and signed into
the Google Play Store on it and thus get apps from both stores (Google and
the tablet's installed Amazon Appstore). Most of Google's store stuff runs
just fine on Amazon's forked Android version. Also much side loaded stuff.
Anyway it would be ironic if Google stopped me side loading unauthorized
apps because on this tablet Google IS an unauthorized side loaded app...
AJL wrote :
Google is tightening Android app security by requiring all developers (whether they publish on the Play Store or sideload apps) to verify
their identities. Starting in 2026, only apps from verified
developers will be installable on most certified Android devices
I wonder if this Amazon Fire HD10 tablet I'm posting with is a
certified Android device in Google's opinion? Because I side loaded
and signed into the Google Play Store on it and thus get apps from
both stores (Google and the tablet's installed Amazon Appstore).
Most of Google's store stuff runs just fine on Amazon's forked
Android version. Also much side loaded stuff. Anyway it would be
ironic if Google stopped me side loading unauthorized apps because
on this tablet Google IS an unauthorized side loaded app...
Hi AJL, This bothers me a lot as now we can't compile our own APKs
without signing up for a Google verified developer, which destroys
our privacy just like iOS destroys our privacy in an instant by
requiring those matrix logins. I'm glad you responded as you did, as
it didn't occur to me that some "Android" devices might not be
considered a "certified Android device".
Looking it up, apparently the Amazon Fire HD 10 runs Fire OS, which
is a heavily customized fork of Android. While it's technically Android-based, it's apparently not certified by Google under the
Android Compatibility Program. I think that means it doesn't come
with Google Mobile Services (GMS) pre installed, and from what I read
just now, it may very well be that Amazon doesn't submit Fire tablets
for Google's certification process.
So when Google says "most certified Android devices," they're
perhaps referring to devices that have passed compatibility testing
and are officially recognized by Google, such as the ubiquitous
Samsung Galaxy tablets or Pixel devices.
The problem is that if Google enforces this identity verification
rule strictly, it's possible that apps from unverified developers
might not install or run properly, even on sideload-friendly devices
like yours. Whether that enforcement will extend to uncertified
devices like Fire tablets is unclear to me, but it's definitely
something to watch over.
The only solution I can see for typical devices is each and every one
of us has to become an official Google developer - which seems crazy
to me
It's a bad direction, IMHO, for Google to take just because they want
to wrest control and claim it's being done for reasons that are said
to be safety (as that's clearly a lie). It's all about control. The
question now is what happens to 3rd-party repos and src code
compiles?
Starting in 2026, only apps from verified developers will be installable on most certified Android devicesCorrect me if I'm wrong, but there's absolutely no reason why Google
On 8/25/25 11:32 PM, Marion wrote:
Starting in 2026, only apps from verified developers will be installable on >> most certified Android devicesCorrect me if I'm wrong, but there's absolutely no reason why Google
should be able to decide what I choose to run on *my* device.
You can run on your device what you want. Of you choose to run Android
on your device you have to follow the Google-rules. Google is evil. Very much like $MS$.
On 8/25/25 11:32 PM, Marion wrote:..
Starting in 2026, only apps from verified developers will be installable on >> most certified Android devices
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's absolutely no reason why Google
should be able to decide what I choose to run on *my* device.
I think that we can safely say that Amazon doesn't officially let Google anywhere near their Fire tablets. And unofficially I was kinda surprised
that Amazon even let me side load the Google Play Store on it and that
once installed Google let me sign in and use it just like a regular
Google Android tablet.
There of course are a few quirks. Google sometimes tried to upgrade
Amazon apps so I just turned Google's auto upgrade off. Also sometimes
an upgrade of a Google app breaks it. My guess is because the upgraded
app now is too advanced for the Amazon Fire's older Android fork. So I
just revert to the earlier version and (usually) all is well.
So when Google says "most certified Android devices," they're
perhaps referring to devices that have passed compatibility testing
and are officially recognized by Google, such as the ubiquitous
Samsung Galaxy tablets or Pixel devices.
What about the less ubiquitous tablets? I have a 10" Android tablet
branded "DEZLTID". (The all capital letter logo is apparently a Chinese thing. I still haven't figured out how to pronounce it.) However it came
with Google installed so I'm guessing it's a certified device?
The problem is that if Google enforces this identity verification
rule strictly, it's possible that apps from unverified developers
might not install or run properly, even on sideload-friendly devices
like yours. Whether that enforcement will extend to uncertified
devices like Fire tablets is unclear to me, but it's definitely
something to watch over.
The only solution I can see for typical devices is each and every one
of us has to become an official Google developer - which seems crazy
to me
That would be crazy for me too especially being a non-technical person.
This is just a hobby for me. The last programming I did was a few years
back using Atari Basic...
Hi AJL, I think it's great that each of us adds value in ways that
the others can't, where I've never even touched an Amazon Fire
Tablet, so we have to learn from what you've learned, and that which
you can impart to us of it.
It appears Amazon's strategy is to kind of sort of limit your
choices in app stores by making it much easier to use their app store
than the Google App Store, but luckily for you Fire OS still allows
for sideloading apps.
I don't know if this is correct but apparently 4 packages are needed:
1. Google Account Manager 2. Google Services Framework 3. Google Play Services 4. Google Play Store
If you use Aurora instead of the Google Play Store GUI, you don't
need those four things [Google installation APKs] anymore
which is a bonus in terms of privacy.
On 8/31/25 4:35 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
You can run on your device what you want. Of you choose to run Android
on your device you have to follow the Google-rules. Google is evil. Very
much like $MS$.
Literally the only reason for this BS is profit...
Of course. Do you work for free?
AJL wrote:
Gabriel Coan wrote:
Literally the only reason for this [Google & MS] BS is profit...
Of course. Do you work for free?
Of course not, but I also believe that Google is certainly not doing
this for the user's benefit.
They certainly seem to be pretending they are.
Gabriel Coan wrote:I think you are confusing a few things. In the service industry it is a
AJL wrote:
Gabriel Coan wrote:
Literally the only reason for this [Google & MS] BS is profit...
Of course. Do you work for free?
Of course not, but I also believe that Google is certainly not doing
this for the user's benefit.
Of course not. Google is a business like most any other business and as
such is designed to make a profit.
They certainly seem to be pretending they are.
I've not seen any Google ads pretending that they are a charity.
AJL wrote:
I've not seen any Google ads pretending that they are a charity.
I think you are confusing a few things. In the service industry
it is a clever and economic move to keep existing clients happy in a
way they buy again.
Gain new clients/customers is more expensive by factors. There is
absolutely no need to pretend to be a charity.
On 9/1/2025 8:47 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
AJL wrote:
I've not seen any Google ads pretending that they are a charity.
I think you are confusing a few things. In the service industry
I think you're confusing what I said.
it is a clever and economic move to keep existing clients happy in a
way they buy again.
Or continue to use the product Which is what I said in the part you snipped.
Gain new clients/customers is more expensive by factors. There is
absolutely no need to pretend to be a charity.
Gabriel Coan CRITICIZED Google's "BS" of being only for profit. And I
pointed out in perhaps too many words that Google's profit was a GOOD
THING. Perhaps it was a language thing...
On 9/1/2025 8:47 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
AJL wrote:
I've not seen any Google ads pretending that they are a charity.
I think you are confusing a few things. In the service industry
I think you're confusing what I said.
it is a clever and economic move to keep existing clients happy in a
way they buy again.
Or continue to use the product Which is what I said in the part you
snipped.
Gain new clients/customers is more expensive by factors. There is
absolutely no need to pretend to be a charity.
Gabriel Coan CRITICIZED Google's "BS" of being only for profit. And I
pointed out in perhaps too many words that Google's profit was a GOOD
THING. Perhaps it was a language thing...
The point I'm trying to make here is that Google is pretending that
blocking sideloading apps is "for the user's security". It's not. It's
for selfish and profit driven reasons. I inherently belive that to be anti-consumer. Perhaps if they were honest about it I might feel differently, but I'm not sure.
On 9/1/25 1:22 PM, AJL wrote:
The point I'm trying to make here is that Google is pretending that
blocking sideloading apps is "for the user's security". It's not.
It's for selfish and profit driven reasons.
I inherently believe that to be anti-consumer.
Perhaps if they were honest about it I might feel differently, but
I'm not sure.
The point I'm trying to make here is that Google is pretending that
blocking sideloading apps is "for the user's security". It's not.
Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
I can see why the hobbyists here are pissed off though...
It's for selfish and profit driven reasons.
Since over 99% (guess) of all Android users don't sideload, I doubt
Google will see that much if any extra profit from the move.
And of course that profit won't come from you. How much do you spend for Google services? Likely zero. Unless you buy Play Store apps and then
most of the profit goes to the developer. You pissed at them too?
I inherently believe that to be anti-consumer.
Well the other few billion Google users apparently disagree. They just
keep sucking up the free Google services...
Perhaps if they were honest about it I might feel differently, but
I'm not sure.
I still don't see anything dishonest. They are apparently being up front
with all the coming changes.
But if you're really pissed, there's several other OS's to change to.
Go for it... 8-O
On 9/2/2025 3:27 PM, Gabriel Coan wrote:
On 9/1/25 1:22 PM, AJL wrote:
The point I'm trying to make here is that Google is pretending that
blocking sideloading apps is "for the user's security". It's not.
Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 17:53:37 -0700, AJL wrote :
Personally, I don't see malware as a problem on Android any more than
it's a problem on any other operating system,
including Windows, Linux & iOS.
There are ways to combat malware that don't include forcing every
app developer to be known to Google in intimate ways that Google
doesn't need.
Since over 99% (guess) of all Android users don't sideload, I
doubt Google will see that much if any extra profit from the move.
Good point. I'd bet something like 95% of my thousand apps are not
sideloaded too.
So why is Google really doing it then?
I've never once bought an iOS or Android app in my entire life. But
you knew that. :)
But I'm intelligent. Most people are incredibly stupid. They buy
things that they don't even know are actually better for free.
There's a big difference there.
I still don't see anything dishonest. They are apparently being up
front with all the coming changes.
Well, they're saying they're doing it for "security", aren't they?
The real reason is control.
On 03.09.2025 02:53, AJL wrote:
Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public
to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
The classic dilemma between freedom and security. Personally I tend
to favour freedom.
On 9/2/2025 11:23 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 03.09.2025 02:53, AJL wrote:
Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public
to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
The classic dilemma between freedom and security. Personally I tend
to favour freedom.
I prefer both.
Security for my moola (bank accounts, investment sites, credit card
sites, tax sites, etc.) which is of course my Chromebook.
Freedom for my other toys (like my Googleized Amazon tablets)...
On 03.09.25 09:05, AJL wrote:
For security for my moola (bank accounts, investment sites, credit
card sites, tax sites, etc.) I use a Chromebook.
I use secure by design FOSS.
Chromebook is as insecure
and violating privacy as much as Windows.
Not really an option for me.
There is a reason why Chromebooks are not very popular in Europe
despite the moderate prices.
Personally, I don't see malware as a problem on Android any more than
it's a problem on any other operating system,
Google apparently thinks so: "Google's March 2025 security bulletin has uncovered 43 vulnerabilities within Android's code. Security researchers
at the tech giant identified 11 high-severity flaws and 10 critical vulnerabilities among these issues."
<https://www.talkandroid.com/503852>
including Windows, Linux & iOS.
Dunno about Linux or Apple but this Windows laptop I'm posting with gets security updates on average several time a week. So MS must also think there's security dangers out there.
There are ways to combat malware that don't include forcing every
app developer to be known to Google in intimate ways that Google
doesn't need.
Could be. But the question was does it increase security and I think
that it probably does.
BTW If you read the news Google came close to be broken up as a monopoly
by the US government. You can always hope... ;)
Since over 99% (guess) of all Android users don't sideload, I
doubt Google will see that much if any extra profit from the move.
Good point. I'd bet something like 95% of my thousand apps are not
sideloaded too.
On my non-Google Android tablet (Fire HD10) about half the apps are sideloaded. On my Google Android tablets just a few are sideloaded and
of course my Chrome OS devices have no sideloaded apps.
So why is Google really doing it then?
My guess is to plug ALL security holes. That extra 5% now being forced
to the Play Store can't be that much of a profit gain, but who knows...
I've never once bought an iOS or Android app in my entire life. But
you knew that. :)
I spent 2 bucks for my Android newsreader PhoNews a few years back. I
still use my Groundhog app for reading but the transmit function broke
back around Android 9.
But I'm intelligent. Most people are incredibly stupid. They buy
things that they don't even know are actually better for free.
So what free GOOD Android newsreader do you suggest?
There's a big difference there.
I don't mind paying the developer for a good app. I can easily afford
it. It's like buying a good book. With you though I'm guessing it's principle, not financial?
I still don't see anything dishonest. They are apparently being up
front with all the coming changes.
Well, they're saying they're doing it for "security", aren't they?
The real reason is control.
Could be both. But neither of us knows for sure...
On 9/3/2025 1:23 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 03.09.25 09:05, AJL wrote:
For security for my moola (bank accounts, investment sites, credit
card sites, tax sites, etc.) I use a Chromebook.
I use secure by design FOSS.
Chromebook is as insecure
This is a (gasp) Google AI answer. No link.
There is a reason why Chromebooks are not very popular in Europe
despite the moderate prices.
Another Google AI answer. No link. I read that websites are complaining
that AI scraping is ruining their real human views and thus costing them money. Guess this is a good example. Guilty...
Chromebooks are popular in Europe, especially in the education sector,
[Chromebook] Market share smaller than Linux.
"While Chromebooks have made significant inroads in education and budget-conscious markets, Windows remains the clear leader in
Europe, with macOS holding the second position.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 00:05:19 -0700, AJL wrote :
There's tons of Android malware. Of that I would agree a priori.
Without even bothering to check the statistics.
Personally, I can't even conceive of a situation where "I" would
download and install malware; but I'm not saying that it couldn't
happen.
I'm just thinkin' you'd have to be incredibly stupid to install
malware.
I have a thread on the Windows newsgroup from about a month or so
ago which asks if anyone has gotten malware in the past decade or so
on Windows. Nobody has. We used to get malware. Now we don't. What
changed?
Microsoft took it seriously by updating the operating system & AV
program. That's really where the solution lies. It's in Microsoft
taking control of their operating system.
It's not in MS taking control of every developer of Windows
programs.
Google should take malware seriously without taking control of
developers.
I only sideload what everyone sideloads, most of which are apps which directly replace a Google app such as NewPipe <--> YouTube.
Obviously I don't have automatic update set for any app, but rest
assured, I tested all of them (which don't work the way most people
think they do).
what free GOOD Android newsreader do you suggest?
Yeah. I tested the Android newsreader apps. All of them that were
free. None worked well. I gave up. It's one functionality that
doesn't exist.
I don't mind paying the developer for a good app. I can easily
afford it. It's like buying a good book.
I have an entire thread on the freeware newsgroup this week
debunking what you just said - where those on that freeware group
agree with me - not you.
It's not about money. It's like saying you can have good kids
because you can afford to pay your kids to go to the best schools in
the country.
It's not about cost. It's about privacy. The instant you pay a
single cent for an app, your privacy is toast.
My main beef is that I can't build from source where, I won't say
that I do it often but I just wrote a tutorial on how to build an
APK from source. That tutorial will be toast when this Draconian
measure goes into effect.
AJL wrote:Sideloading is off by default, I doubt most users even know it exists,
Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public to
download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
The classic dilemma between freedom and security.
Personally I tend to favour freedom.
A Chromebook is a laptop.
I'm just thinkin' you'd have to be incredibly stupid to install
malware.
Most people don't intentionally install Android malware cause it hides disguised as a functioning app that entices them to download it.
I have a thread on the Windows newsgroup from about a month or so
ago which asks if anyone has gotten malware in the past decade or so
on Windows. Nobody has. We used to get malware. Now we don't. What
changed?
I'm not aware of any malware that I've ever gotten. But then I've never
been in a freeway crash either so I still try to be careful in both cases.
Microsoft took it seriously by updating the operating system & AV
program. That's really where the solution lies. It's in Microsoft
taking control of their operating system.
I wonder how many apps in the Microsoft Store contain malware?
It's not in MS taking control of every developer of Windows
programs.
There would be less security allowing ANY app found on ANY website to be downloaded and run. HOPEFULLY Windows can catch the bad ones.
Google should take malware seriously without taking control of
developers.
Different companies treat security in different ways.
I only sideload what everyone sideloads, most of which are apps which
directly replace a Google app such as NewPipe <--> YouTube.
I mostly sideload older app versions to run on my older vintage tablets.
And of course I sideloaded Google on my Amazon tablets.
Obviously I don't have automatic update set for any app, but rest
assured, I tested all of them (which don't work the way most people
think they do).
No auto-update set on my stuff either.
what free GOOD Android newsreader do you suggest?
Yeah. I tested the Android newsreader apps. All of them that were
free. None worked well. I gave up. It's one functionality that
doesn't exist.
Yup. I get the same answer every time I ask.
I don't mind paying the developer for a good app. I can easily
afford it. It's like buying a good book.
I have an entire thread on the freeware newsgroup this week
debunking what you just said - where those on that freeware group
agree with me - not you.
I would expect nothing else from a FREEware group.
It's not about money. It's like saying you can have good kids
because you can afford to pay your kids to go to the best schools in
the country.
Paying for a $5 or $10 for an app hardly compares so sending your kid to
a good $100,000 school.
It's not about cost. It's about privacy. The instant you pay a
single cent for an app, your privacy is toast.
As I pointed out earlier unless you live in a cave your online privacy
is pretty much toast anyway. Especially in your doctor's officewhere the staff jokes about your constipation problems... ;)
My main beef is that I can't build from source where, I won't say
that I do it often but I just wrote a tutorial on how to build an
APK from source. That tutorial will be toast when this Draconian
measure goes into effect.
The malware writers are likely pissed also...
On 03.09.2025 20:37, AJL wrote:
A Chromebook is a laptop.
A Chromebook is defined hardware plus a very specific OS delivered by
Google. The OS is relevant.
AJL wrote:
Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public
to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
Sideloading is off [on Pixel Android 16] by default, I doubt most
users even know it exists, let alone enable it, feels rather
nannyish to block it entirely.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 11:37:15 -0700, AJL wrote :
I wonder how many apps in the Microsoft Store contain malware?
I don't have a Microsoft Account so in general, I can't even use the Microsoft Store, but most people on Windows don't use it, I think.
I don't think it's about security. I think it's about control.
Personally, I hate the word "sideload" because it's the normal way
to install software. It's mainly Apple who made sideloading an evil
term.
But then, in about a week or so, they re-write the open source code.
And Google takes about a year or so to think about breaking it
again.
On 9/3/2025 1:18 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 03.09.2025 20:37, AJL wrote:
A Chromebook is a laptop.
A Chromebook is defined hardware plus a very specific OS delivered by
Google. The OS is relevant.
And to confuse things more, many Chromebooks (including mine) can be
easily modified (with no mods to hardware or software) to run Linux apps
with apparently (gasp) Google's blessing...
On 04.09.2025 00:36, AJL wrote:
On 9/3/2025 1:18 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 03.09.2025 20:37, AJL wrote:
A Chromebook is a laptop.
A Chromebook is defined hardware plus a very specific OS delivered by
Google. The OS is relevant.
And to confuse things more, many Chromebooks (including mine) can be
easily modified (with no mods to hardware or software) to run Linux apps
with apparently (gasp) Google's blessing...
To make things even more obscure: Chromebook-OS can be installed on
almost every desktop computer/laptop.
On 9/3/25 11:06 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 04.09.2025 00:36, AJL wrote:
On 9/3/2025 1:18 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 03.09.2025 20:37, AJL wrote:
A Chromebook is a laptop.
A Chromebook is defined hardware plus a very specific OS delivered by
Google. The OS is relevant.
And to confuse things more, many Chromebooks (including mine) can be
easily modified (with no mods to hardware or software) to run Linux apps >>> with apparently (gasp) Google's blessing...
To make things even more obscure: Chromebook-OS can be installed on
almost every desktop computer/laptop.
That would be the Flex version not the Chromebook version.
On 9/3/2025 1:10 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
AJL wrote:
Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public
to download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
Sideloading is off [on Pixel Android 16] by default, I doubt most
users even know it exists, let alone enable it, feels rather
nannyish to block it entirely.
Yep. My Chromebooks don't allow sideloading at all. Nanny Google is protecting me from myself...
Nanny Google is protecting me from myself...
On 9/3/2025 2:02 PM, Marion wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 11:37:15 -0700, AJL wrote :
I wonder how many apps in the Microsoft Store contain malware?
I don't have a Microsoft Account so in general, I can't even use the Microsoft Store, but most people on Windows don't use it, I think.
I have a MS account in my fake name. The initials are AJL (don't tell
MS). I've gotten a few apps there. They had to be free with no CC on file.
I don't have a Microsoft Account so in general, I can't even use the Microsoft Store,
AJL wrote:
Nanny Google is protecting me from myself...
Maybe they should educate people to create multiple user accounts on
android devices
so have one account for 'risky' sideloaded apps, which can't touch
the files of their day-to-day account?
Google appear to show that they trust isolated 'private' filesystems
per app or per user.
On 04.09.25 00:36, AJL wrote:
My Chromebooks don't allow sideloading at all.
On a Linux distro ist is easy to install a RPM or a DEB packages or
find things on Flathub.
No problem on a Mac either to sideload software.
Why did you buy this digital jail?
On 04.09.2025 09:17, AJL wrote:
On 9/3/25 11:06 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
To make things even more obscure: Chromebook-OS can be installed
on almost every desktop computer/laptop.
That would be the Flex version not the Chromebook version.
WTF cares?
The outlook for this privacy nightmare is very dire.
Google is evil.
My Chromebooks (and tablet) all run Android so I have access to a
million plus apps in the Play Store. So it's not quite a jail...
On 04.09.2025 18:17, AJL wrote:
My Chromebooks (and tablet) all run Android so I have access to a
million plus apps in the Play Store. So it's not quite a jail...
It certainly is but a very big one.
Your choice.
I don't have a Microsoft Account so in general, I can't even use the
Microsoft Store,
is not quite correct, especially as he's opposed to using non-free
software.
Google appear to show that they trust isolated 'private' filesystems
per app or per user.
So I'm doubtful multiple accounts on one device would help with a
"risky" sideloaded Android app...
Andy Burns wrote:Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was talking about multiple *android*
AJL wrote:
Nanny Google is protecting me from myself...
Maybe they should educate people to create multiple user accounts on
android devices
I have multiple Google accounts on all my Android devices.
AJL wrote:
Nanny Google is protecting me from myself...
Maybe they should educate people to create multiple user accounts on
android devices
I have multiple Google accounts on all my Android devices.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I was talking about multiple *android*
users, not google accounts ...
I was talking about multiple *android*
users, not google accounts ...
<https://support.google.com/android/answer/2865483?hl=en-GB>
On 03.09.2025 02:53, AJL wrote:
On 9/2/2025 3:27 PM, Gabriel Coan wrote:
On 9/1/25 1:22 PM, AJL wrote:
The point I'm trying to make here is that Google is pretending that
blocking sideloading apps is "for the user's security". It's not.
Preventing sideloading from any unverified sources would definitely
increase security for the average folk. Allowing the general public to
download apps from any old place online can breed trouble.
The classic dilemma between freedom and security.
Personally I tend to favour freedom.
Sideloading is off by default, I doubt most users even know it exists,
let alone enable it, feels rather nannyish to block it entirely.
I think it's entirely my prerogative what I install. Having sideloading >disabled by default I understand, but completely refusing to allow the
user to choose to enable it is quite frankly ridiculous in my opinion.
On 9/3/25 4:10 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Sideloading is off by default, I doubt most users even know it exists,
let alone enable it, feels rather nannyish to block it entirely.
Exactly. I don't understand why users shouldn't have the choice.
On 9/5/25 4:05 PM, Gabriel Coan wrote:
I think it's entirely my prerogative what I install. Having sideloading >>disabled by default I understand, but completely refusing to allow the >>user to choose to enable it is quite frankly ridiculous in my opinion.
Get an Amazon Fire Tablet. I'm posting this with one. It lets me sideload
anything from anywhere. Course its older Android fork won't run everything
new but that's not been a big problem for me. I can usually find a
workaround. And it runs some of my older stuff that newer Android won't
(like my old Groundhog newsreader). I sideloaded the Play Store so it plus
the Amazon Appstore have apps aplenty to choose from. Just hoping that
Amazon doesn't take Google's lead and screw things up...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 00:28:54 -0000 (UTC), AJL wrote :
On 9/5/25 4:05 PM, Gabriel Coan wrote:
I think it's entirely my prerogative what I install. Having sideloading
disabled by default I understand, but completely refusing to allow the
user to choose to enable it is quite frankly ridiculous in my opinion.
Get an Amazon Fire Tablet. I'm posting this with one. It lets me sideload
anything from anywhere. Course its older Android fork won't run everything >> new but that's not been a big problem for me. I can usually find a
workaround. And it runs some of my older stuff that newer Android won't
(like my old Groundhog newsreader). I sideloaded the Play Store so it plus >> the Amazon Appstore have apps aplenty to choose from.
Hi AJL,
One of the problems is that Google is preventing us from building an APK without each and every one of us registering ourselves as real developers.
Based on a search result run just now, apparently the Groundhog Usenet newsreader for Android was released under the GPL open source license and
its full source code is publicly available. The author, Juan J. Sanchez (juanjux), published it on GitHub and stated that anyone is free to fork
and continue development. This means we can legally download the code, open it in Android Studio or another Java/Android build environment, and compile your own APK using the methods outlined in my recent tutorial.
The main point is that while we can build an APK from source today, Google
is trying to make that impossible -
One of the problems is that Google is preventing us from building an APK
without each and every one of us registering ourselves as real developers.
So your choices are to either register or don't use a Google device. My above described Amazon tablet is such a non-Google device. It should run your non-registered apps just fine.
All my other Android toys require Google to operate. Are there any other Android OS tablets out there that you can buy that work without Google?
Based on a search result run just now, apparently the Groundhog Usenet
newsreader for Android was released under the GPL open source license and
its full source code is publicly available. The author, Juan J. Sanchez
(juanjux), published it on GitHub and stated that anyone is free to fork
and continue development. This means we can legally download the code, open >> it in Android Studio or another Java/Android build environment, and compile >> your own APK using the methods outlined in my recent tutorial.
That apk modifying stuff is beyond my pay grade.
But I've been using
Groundhog for many years now. I use it for Usenet reading only since the posting function broke around Android 9. But reading is a PITA with my
other Android newsreader PhoNews. So it's Groundhog until I want to
post, then I switch. I'm still looking for a good modern Android
newsreader but I think we both agreed that there isn't one.
The main point is that while we can build an APK from source today, Google >> is trying to make that impossible -
It's a security thing IMO but we've been over that before. I just can't
see where Google will lose much cash over the sideload crowd. Maybe you should just join up and make some bucks selling your apps in the Play Store... 8-O
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 19:08:12 -0400, Gabriel Coan wrote :
On 9/3/25 4:10 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
Sideloading is off by default, I doubt most users even know it exists,
let alone enable it, feels rather nannyish to block it entirely.
Exactly. I don't understand why users shouldn't have the choice.
I think just giving it a fancy name of "sideloading" obscures the point
that nearly every consumer operating system allows apps from anywhere.
So it's "normal loading" for almost all the operating systems out there.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,069 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 00:20:41 |
| Calls: | 13,719 |
| Files: | 186,957 |
| D/L today: |
1,719 files (520M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,418,817 |
