If you haven’t seen this yet, Google is planning to require mandatory developer identity verification for all Android apps, including apps distributed outside the Play Store, taking effect September 2026. This affects every independent and open source Android developer directly.
This is not just about the Play Store. After September 2026, on any certified Android device, applications from unverified developers will be blocked by default. The only proposed bypass, the “advanced flow”, exists only as a blog post and has not appeared in any beta, dev preview, or canary release. No one outside Google has seen it.
The community has been fighting back at keepandroidopen.org:
- Read the full breakdown of what this means
- Sign the open letter (organisations only)
- Contact your national regulators — contacts listed by country on the site
- Add the countdown banner to your project
September 2026 is closer than it looks. The time to push back is now.
As far as I’m aware, there’s only the advanced flow thing that is mentioned in this post?
If that’s the only solution, I wouldn’t call that “rolling back.”
For a while they were completely removing the ability to install unsigned apps altogether. So continuing to allow it albeit with more steps is indeed stepping back somewhat from what their plans were.
Rolling back usually means to revert it fully.
The advanced flow (which includes a 24hr wait time) is not rolling back and I wouldn’t call it stepping back either. It’s obviously designed to kedp friction high so thst no one even bothers with freedom and privacy protecting apps that dont want to or can’t go through googles verification process.
This isn’t what you think it is… it’s barely conceding when the friction remains this high.
You’re being overly pedantic about my word choice instead of actually just discussing this without trying to be condescending and one up people. Online discussions are conversations, not competitions.
I’m not being overly pedantic and I am discussing it, sorry if my reply sounded a bit blunt though.
My main point is that my reply to your original comment was made with a different understanding to what you actually meant, which is not “rolled back.”
(And that I disagree that their slight change to the plan, which has yet to be seen by the public as far as i’m aware, is anywhere near a move in the right direction, maybe the tiniest nudge ever, but not meaningful).
p.s. my thoughts on your word choice was only a tiny part of my message :/