[HN Gopher] Answering questions about Android developer verifica...
___________________________________________________________________
Answering questions about Android developer verification
Author : rom1v
Score : 74 points
Date : 2025-09-30 17:56 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (android-developers.googleblog.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (android-developers.googleblog.com)
| rom1v wrote:
| > One of the most important themes we hear from the developer
| community is the need for more lead time to adapt to changes
|
| No, it's not.
| realusername wrote:
| That's the biggest lie haha, if they asked a single real
| developer, we want less useless paperwork.
| orangecat wrote:
| This mostly confirms that it's exactly as bad as we thought. The
| only clarification is that building from source and installing
| via adb will continue to be allowed. For now.
| MrDresden wrote:
| My understanding was that those packages still had to be signed
| with a key known to Google.
| takluyver wrote:
| The current blog post does appear to say that you don't need
| to be verified to install and run apps with adb.
| MrDresden wrote:
| Ah thanks for correcting me. I had only listened to the ADB
| podcast episode and from that it seemed that signature
| would always be needed.
| yanosc wrote:
| No need to listen. We all know how evil the intentions are. This
| will kill the platform, for better or worse.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| We've been through this route before, it doesn't kill the
| platforms. It just alienates people like us, which is actually
| a net benefit to Google.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Android was a sink for people who want things like this and
| an excuse for people to rationalize Apple doing it. If
| Android is "good enough" then who needs some actual Linux
| phone? If Android is open and that's what you want then why
| don't people just buy one of those instead of having the
| government break up Apple and Google?
|
| People become willing to do things when you throw them out in
| the cold that they wouldn't do when you were still supplying
| the bread and circuses, and those people they don't like?
| It's because they're stubborn and they actually care and they
| know how to build things, isn't it?
| jjav wrote:
| In this case, the benefit of android is that the owner of the
| device owns it, so can run whatever they want, in stark
| contrast to apple.
|
| If that goes away, might as well use apple's walled garden.
| There is no point for android to exist if freedom goes away.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| An average person never thinks about that. That's like not
| even a thing one ever thinks of while purchasing a phone.
| MrZander wrote:
| > If your team's current test process relies on distributing APKs
| to testers for installation using methods other than adb, you
| will need to verify your identity and register the package.
|
| Absolute bullshit Google. You have no right telling me what I can
| and cannot run on my own devices. Regardless of how I choose to
| install it.
| pr337h4m wrote:
| What do the OEMs have to say about this? A lot of them, including
| Samsung, have their own app stores. Surely they'd not be willing
| to cede control?
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Samsung's store contains virtually no original third-party
| software, anything that's worth installing and is not from
| Samsung is available on the Play Store.
| bbarnett wrote:
| You know, you have to wonder what they did wrong.
|
| Sure the Play store was dominant when they started their own
| store. Yet companies tend to have excellent success if they
| control the OS on the device.
|
| They could have offered no commission for 5 years, or some
| such.
|
| Does anyone reading this know if the contract they had to
| sign with Google, to have the Play store pre-installed,
| reduced their ability to compete?
|
| I mean look at the whole Epic thing. They could have offered
| them commission free use of the store, and used that to draw
| users in.
|
| It's like they weren't trying.
| realusername wrote:
| OEM will of course retain more rights than device owner as it's
| always the case on android
| ACCount37 wrote:
| Yep, it's as bad as everyone expected it to be. "We aren't taking
| away sideloading, we're just going to fully control it now! No
| Google-unapproved code on user devices! For security reasons!"
|
| Chrome isn't enough. We need Android to get clawed away from
| Google too.
| runting wrote:
| Not really though, as you can still install apps over adb
| without developer verification, same as always.
| oflebbe wrote:
| You can sideload apps in ios too, but you may not run it.
| runting wrote:
| On Android you can both install and run apps over adb. The
| linked article explains:
|
| > _Participating in developer verification will not affect
| your experience in Android Studio, the official IDE for
| Android app development. You will continue to be able to
| build and run an app even if your identity is not verified.
| Android Studio is unaffected because deployments performed
| with adb, which Android Studio uses behind the scenes to
| push builds to devices, is unaffected. You can continue to
| develop, debug, and test your app locally by deploying to
| both emulators and physical devices, just as you do now._
| interloxia wrote:
| Not really though. That's not how apps are usually installed
| on Android outside of Google's control.
| hn92726819 wrote:
| Do you see the direction they're heading? They're now making
| it so maybe .5% of android users know how to sideload.
| They're clearly chipping away at it, even though they might
| not be making all the changes at once.
| chistev wrote:
| Give them an inch...
| estimator7292 wrote:
| And by what mechanism can you prevent google from disabling
| adb? Or implementing a situation like iOS where sideloaded
| dev apps only last for a week and are signed with your
| personal developer key tied to your credit card?
|
| There's nothing to stop them, and absolutely no reason to
| think they won't take away adb sideloading in the near
| future.
| u5wbxrc3 wrote:
| Googles decisision to add developer verification killed my
| interest in handset development entirely. But hey, at least I
| know what to focus my time on rather than third party app
| development ie. F-Droid. I look at my android phone differently
| now that its on the table which sucks but hey they made me switch
| my development time to linux drivers now instead.
| MrDresden wrote:
| After 15 years of professional development on Android I too am
| now thinking about switching my focus to something different.
| And it sucks.
|
| Just wished there was a viable* FOSS Linux based mobile OS
| project out there that I could offer my time and energy to
| instead.
| drnick1 wrote:
| Aren't Graphene and Lineage exactly that?
|
| I have been running Graphene on a Pixel for a while now and I
| don't think Linux phones are a viable alternative. The vast
| majority of Android apps just work on Graphene, and there are
| millions of them. The UI experience is polished, everything
| just works with the exception of apps that require Google
| Play Integrity. And of course these projects aren't affected
| by Google's restrictions on sideloading.
| MrDresden wrote:
| Look I love that GrapheneOS exists, and I have used it in
| the past (as have I with Lineage).
|
| But GrapheneOS lives by the mercy of Google. Pixel devices
| being reference devices makes it so that it's unlikely that
| Google will close them down completely.
|
| However, as can be seen with this verification move, Google
| is willing to go very far to accomplish its aims. They
| already delayed delivery of Android 16 images, causing
| GrapheneOS some headaches.
|
| Who is to say more isn't to come.
| bitwize wrote:
| Waydroid exists and a mobile distro that provided Waydroid
| OOTB would be as usable as a full-on Android phone. You
| could even build it to remove the app verification stuff if
| that found its way into AOSP.
| notrealyme123 wrote:
| The only reason I still have a Google account is because I have a
| android phone.
|
| Seems like that will change soon.
| nine_k wrote:
| Is an Apple account materially better?
| politelemon wrote:
| As though to flex a muscle, around the time this program was
| first announced, apple revoked a third party application from
| being installed on its devices. I say its and not users,
| because they've proven it's not your device.
| notrealyme123 wrote:
| I would say an apple account feels a bit less like having
| stepped in shit.
|
| But no, I think in the case when android is no option any
| more, I will seriously reconsider if we peaked on some
| enshitification with smartphones.
|
| Maybe no smartphone or Linux phones will be more interesting
| for some time for me then.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| Look, Google. You and me both, we don't want EU bureaucracy to
| get involved again... (It's going to be a different group than
| the chat control people. If the chat control people win bigly,
| this would actually support what they want. Is there, like, any
| connection between that and the timing of these new rules?)
| sunaookami wrote:
| DMA does nothing to prevent this, Google claims it's about
| security which will satisfy the DMA. Same as for Apple (the EU
| is going after them because of the fees, not because of the
| complicated process). The EU is not interested in letting you
| run unapproved software because they want to use it for
| themselves with their digital wallet app and ID checks.
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| Can an non-profit LLC verify itself and submit apps on behalf or
| anonymous developers after vetting their code? If so, that would
| probably a nice middle-ground.
|
| The reaction to this change has truly changed my opinion that
| developer's opinions on a lot of subjects affecting the public's
| safety and security shouldn't be valued much (and yes, I realize
| I am on HN). If this is a bridge too far, then why should anyone
| listen to devs about "we can't backdoor cryptography" and things
| like chat control and more? You can't make every hill the hill
| you die on. I wouldn't even be against requiring a professional
| certification organization for developers before they're allowed
| to publish software to the masses. I would very much find it
| unpleasant, but we live in a society. You need a license to
| drive, to be a doctor, engineer and just about any profession
| where people's safety and well being is in jeopardy. Even real
| estate agents are licensed! and people all up in arms about a
| simple id verification.
|
| This is just to address malicious code. How does the public know
| your code isn't full of vulnerabilities, that you're not selling
| their data to the highest bidder? How do they know that you have
| a good understanding of secure coding practices and knowledge of
| privacy laws? Let's talk about that instead, if you publish
| software for a private group of people, there should be no
| restrictions. If you're publishing it on a platform that would
| expose your software to billions of people, get a license after
| id verification and passing a globally standardized exam
| (multiple choice and a practical coding exam!).
|
| See, the big disconnect is that most developers see software as
| something similar to writing a book or selling a home-made item
| on etsy or ebay. But in reality, it's more like manufacturing a
| car or a gun, or opening a bank (if your app takes payments), or
| even opening a restaurant or a food truck. all these things
| require licensing. The malware and privacy loss people suffer is
| akin too food poisoning, car accidents,etc.. but since it all
| happens virtually and there is typically no physical harm,
| developers are dismissive of it. This isn't the 90's anymore,
| people's lives and livelihoods are all online, all the security
| measures you can take, using signal for chat, passkeys and
| password managers for creds,vpns,etc.. and you're still one legit
| looking app install away, one convincing phish away from your
| phone being compromised along with all your accounts, finances ,
| job and your entire life as you recognize it from being harmed or
| destroyed.
|
| I urge you all to temper passions with reason and practicality.
| takluyver wrote:
| The umbrella organisation signing apps is not impossible, as
| far as I know. But it would need to be pretty cautious, because
| if Google revokes its registration, that could block all the
| apps it has signed at once.
|
| It's hard to see how you could get the necessary level of
| careful code review with just volunteer effort. But I suspect
| that most developers who don't want to register with Google are
| also unlikely to pay money to a third party to work around
| this.
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| With enough developers, revoking that cert would affect too
| many users, so Google would be forced to be careful. It will
| sort of be like devs unionizing. As far as review goes, not
| having the money or time to review code sounds exactly like
| the problem Google is trying to eradicate, because right now
| when your app causes problems you can just create a different
| account and start over without risking your reputation.
| saubeidl wrote:
| > This is just to address malicious code
|
| Where "malicious" is defined as anything that Google or the
| American Empire doesn't agree with.
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| Malicious is to cause harm and if it refuses your app because
| of that reason you have legal recourse.
| saubeidl wrote:
| Legal recourse in the American empire that just made Google
| block an app to warn of its armed goons approaching? Color
| me skeptical.
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| Libel for calling it malicious and a tort case for
| malicious interference in trace/commerce. Although,
| fighting google's lawyers is another matter. If they
| blocked it without reason, it would be difficult, but if
| they said it was malicious and that was a lie, regardless
| of ToS or contracts you have a libel case as the very
| least. IANAL.
| avaq wrote:
| > I wouldn't even be against requiring a professional
| certification organization for developers before they're
| allowed to publish software to the masses
|
| Is Google that organization? Because they themselves have
| decided that they are. I think what people are worried about is
| that Google is positioning itself to be the judge, jury, and
| executioner within such a licensing framework, not necessarily
| the licensing itself.
|
| > This is just to address malicious code.
|
| Yes, and if Google had shown that it's capable of identifying
| and rejecting malicious code distributed via its own app store,
| then maybe their proposed expansion of that security program to
| the entirety of the Android app ecosystem would carry some
| weight. But as it stands, their Play Store is full of user-
| hostile and often malicious apps[1].
|
| > If you publish software for a private group of people, there
| should be no restrictions. If you're publishing it on a
| platform that would expose your software to billions of people,
| get a license after id verification
|
| But that's exactly the opposite of what Google is doing, here,
| and why people are mad. Google isn't adding a new policy to
| their app distribution platform (the play store that grants
| exposure to billions of users), but rather they are forcing ID
| verification on any form of app distribution: If you want any
| regular user to be able to install your code, no matter how
| small the audience, you'll need to first give your identity to
| Google, and obtain a (paid[1]?) license. So the restrictions do
| apply to "a private group of people" too.
|
| The crux, and what has people up in arms I think, is the
| overreach of Google's peoposed licensing policy to cover not
| only their own app distribution ecosystem, but all others
| targeting Android.
|
| Many technical users of Android consider it to be a general
| purpose computing platform, and they want to retain the freedom
| to install and run whatever software they trust.
|
| Google should focus their supposed concerns about regular
| user's safety on the user-hostile apps that they allow to exist
| in their own app store, rather than grasping for broader
| control that they'll "probably use at some point but only for
| good things like user security".
|
| 1: https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-
| registrat...
| notepad0x90 wrote:
| > Is Google that organization?
|
| I agree, it isn't and shouldn't be, an industry self-
| regulating org is needed, like the CA/B forum for browsers.
| Maybe one day we can transition to that.
|
| > Yes, and if Google had shown that it's capable of
| identifying and rejecting malicious code distributed via its
| own app store,
|
| You're making the opposite point there, they can't do a good
| job at scanning their appstore, so requiring devs to id
| themselves is a better option, so that anyone publishing
| malicious code might risk real-world criminal penalties.
| That's a better deterrent than google scanning code.
|
| > If you want any regular user to be able to install your
| code, no matter how small the audience, you'll need to first
| give your identity to Google, and obtain a (paid[1]?)
| license. So the restrictions do apply to "a private group of
| people" too.
|
| This applies to google certified phones, and such phones at
| the time of certification are sold to the public, not to a
| private audience. Private audiences need to buy non-google-
| certified phones (which exist). The question of google
| certification is one you need to have with phone vendors not
| Google. Samsung can opt to avoid google certification just
| fine. They have every right to demand that a phone with their
| stamp on it can only run apps by devs they authenticated,
| this is the price of their seal of approval.
|
| > Many technical users of Android consider it to be a general
| purpose computing platform, and they want to retain the
| freedom to install and run whatever software they trust.
|
| Yeah, for example I have an x86 android VM, it won't be
| affected because it isn't google certified. If you came up
| with a custom tablet or laptop that runs android, you can
| load random apps on it just fine.
|
| > Google should focus their supposed concerns about regular
| user's safety on the user-hostile apps..
|
| They can do multiple things, but this helps with that as
| well. the dev making user hostile apps now has to use his
| real name and their reputation will now follow them forever.
| DecentShoes wrote:
| More confirmation that Google is a company with too much power
| and should be forced to sell Android and Chrome
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| They're more likely to buy out all of our members of
| parliaments and turn into East India Company and form their own
| army to protect their investment.
|
| We've got to a point where corporations are bigger than some
| countries and getting almost unlimited powers again.
| holri wrote:
| The year of the Linux Phone is coming!
| samat wrote:
| DHH has not completed his desktop Linux quest yet...
| MrDresden wrote:
| There sadly isn't a single viable option for a Linux mobile
| phone out there.
|
| - Purism runs ancient hardware, charges way too much and has
| questionable business ethics.
|
| - Pine64 has equally bad hardware but reasonable prices. I
| don't like the Hong-Kong connection though. Not sure how the
| security patching environment is in practice.
|
| The only option on the table as I see it is buying from the
| devil and installing GrapheneOS.
| opengrass wrote:
| https://postmarketos.org/
| holri wrote:
| There is also jolla / sailfishos built by ex Nokia engineers.
| The Russians forked it and are useing it in government /
| industry.
| lukevp wrote:
| So this is saying you have to have an Android developer account
| and sign the app with your identity... so a one-time $25 cost and
| that's it? You can still distribute and sideload apps as long as
| you sign them.
|
| Microsoft does this for Windows apps if you don't want scary
| warnings popping up everywhere. Apple doesn't even let you
| sideload at all for iOS and for macOS they do the forced trash
| malware thing unless you run commands to allow the app in the
| terminal.
|
| Am I missing how this is different from what we already have on
| most platforms? Is it because you can't force it to install the
| apps? Is there not a developer mode that lets you install
| unsigned apps, or a way to root the device to install apps?
| rcxdude wrote:
| The fact that other platforms do something similar is not an
| excuse, and this is more restrictive than both windows and
| macOS, even if technically less restrictive than iOS.
|
| (The fact that all those platforms still have malware, as well
| as the officially sanctioned google store, should also inform
| you about how effective this measure is for its stated goal)
| takluyver wrote:
| I'm guessing Windows gets a pass because you can still fairly
| easily bypass the signature check - it's effectively a warning
| rather than a hard block. It sounds like for (mainstream)
| Android, the only workaround will be to plug it into a PC and
| use adb there to install an unsigned app, which is considerably
| harder. Installing a custom ROM will presumably get around it
| too, but that's tough, and various government and banking apps
| etc tend to refuse to run because of attestation.
|
| Apple is of course locked down, but that's not news. The anger
| is because Android was the better option on this dimension.
| lukevp wrote:
| Is rooting the same as a custom rom nowadays? And enabling
| developer options won't allow installation of unsigned apps
| either?
| takluyver wrote:
| They could add a developer option to bypass the new
| restriction, but as far as I know they haven't said they'll
| do that, and I don't see any reason why they would. The adb
| bypass is probably good enough for actual developers.
|
| Apps can certainly detect if a phone is rooted and refuse
| to work, like with a custom ROM. It's up to the developer
| what they care about, but this is not unusual. There are
| ways to try to trick the check into passing, but it sounds
| like the kind of thing that might break on any update.
| saubeidl wrote:
| It's not about the $25. It's about Google centralizing control.
| If they don't like your app, oops, no verification for you.
|
| Goodbye NewPipe. Goodbye anything that doesn't align with
| Google's capitalist interest or American imperial interest.
| lukevp wrote:
| But they don't verify each app in this case, just the
| developer... you get verified before you even tell them what
| type of app you have.
|
| Sure, it's possible they could retroactively ban your app,
| but they could do that without signing too. Just ban
| com.anonymous.newpipe or whatever the package name is. The
| signing doesn't really change this.
| jjav wrote:
| > Am I missing how this is different from what we already have
| on most platforms?
|
| Most? The only platform that is like that is ios.
|
| On linux, in any form, I can run what I want.
|
| On a mac I can run what I want.
|
| On windows I can run what I want.
|
| Obviously on BSDs, Illumos, etc, I can run what I want.
|
| On android up to now, I can run what I want.
|
| The one and sole exception where I don't really own the device
| and can't run what I want it ios (therefore I don't own
| anything that uses ios). And now google wants to join that evil
| club.
| lukevp wrote:
| Have you used windows 11 and macOS 26? They both have malware
| scanning and throw up alerts or scary dialogs that you have
| to do cli commands or workarounds to launch unknown apps. I
| don't see this as much different than Android requiring you
| to either root or enable developer options.
|
| I understand this is a controversial position and I'm not in
| favor of this change, I just want to understand where the
| real differences are in an impartial way.
|
| Of course Linux is an exception but it is also not widely
| used by consumers like Android and the other OSes I listed
| are.
| scarlehoff wrote:
| I'd be fine with a warning. You can just dismiss it and
| continue doing your thing.
|
| It is a bit more convoluted in macOS now but still
| something quick.
|
| What Google is saying is that I need to install adb, search
| for a cable, connect it and _then_ run the cli command. It
| is very different, not even close.
| bitwize wrote:
| Warnings don't work. Scammers will tell you please do the
| needful and dismiss the warning, and grandma will obey.
| UAC on Windows was instructive: it only served to
| desensitize people to warning dialogs. Microsoft is
| moving toward the industry best practice in this regard
| by setting Windows Defender to quarantine unsigned code
| automatically.
| eminence32 wrote:
| I'm not an android developer, so I'm missing some context and key
| information. But I have a question: When Google is asking
| developers to "register" their apps as part of this new program,
| are they just trying to keep a mapping from some code signing key
| to a government ID? Or are they trying to do a code review
| process that is similar to submitting to an app store?
|
| I know both are objectionable in their own way, but these two
| scenarios are quite different and I want to understand this
| better.
| samat wrote:
| The first one for sure, second one -- to an extent. If you
| publish "objectionable" apps (we are told this will be used to
| combat malware) -- your certificate will be revoked.
| ACCount37 wrote:
| Yes, combat malware. They totally aren't doing this to kill
| off ReVanced.
| prameshbajra wrote:
| > We want to make sure that if you download an app, it's truly
| from the developer it claims to be published from, regardless of
| where you get the app. Verified developers will have the same
| freedom to distribute their apps directly to users through
| sideloading or through any app store they prefer.
|
| This makes no sense at all.
| samat wrote:
| Classic strawman argument and corporate tactics of shifting the
| conversation without addressing real concerns.
| Arch-TK wrote:
| Somewhat unrelated: Do you think the UK government and Google
| have the same PR team?
|
| Thought: Maybe we can organise and collectively hire this PR
| team to get Google, other big tech, and our governments, to
| look bad... And get shit done that way... If 2025 is the year
| of the PR spin, surely the only counter-measure is counter-
| spin?
|
| Edit: Hold on, I think I just re-invented the concept of a
| political party.
| gruez wrote:
| Not to mention this doesn't even solve the problem. What's
| preventing someone from registering and then releasing an app
| with a similar name to a famous app? Sure, the registration
| means there's someone you can sue, but it doesn't allow the
| user to identify the publisher. A "verified publisher" field
| when you're installing an app would solve both issues (similar
| to windows[1]), and not require every app developer to register
| with google.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:User_Account_Control.png
| runting wrote:
| This isn't so bad. Unlike other mobile OSes (namely iOS and
| HarmonyOS), you will still be able to install whatever you like
| on Android over a USB debugging connection (adb) without any
| developer verification.
|
| It doesn't take much effort to enable Developer Options, plug
| into a laptop and run "adb install whatever.apk". It's kind of
| like the floppy disk era again, having to physically insert
| things into one's computer to install software. Not a big deal.
| po1nter wrote:
| Taking away adb install should be the next step. It's a
| slippery slope
| runting wrote:
| Is there any evidence that Google plan to do this?
| gbil wrote:
| adb backup is gone
| curiousgal wrote:
| Was there ever evidence that they would take away apk
| installing?
| rcxdude wrote:
| They've made their intentions clear. As soon as third-
| parties start to use adb for sideloading there's a very
| good chance they start to lock that down as well.
| notrealyme123 wrote:
| The current trajectory provides at least strong evidence.
|
| If adb installing is used to circumvent their signing
| programm, it has to go as well.
| yoavm wrote:
| At least as far as I understand, this would be a huge issue for
| F-Droid, to the extent that it isn't clear if it can continue
| at all. Half of my apps come from there, and gets automatically
| updated. Starting to download APKs manually and install them
| with ADB isn't impossible, but a huge downside.
| runting wrote:
| This might open up a market opportunity for an "F-Droid box"
| that one would plug into an Android phone over USB, to
| install and update F-Droid apps over adb. Or the equivalent
| software for a laptop.
| curiousgal wrote:
| Boy do I regret signing up to a yearly plan of Google Workspace,
| I sure as fuck won't be renewing that next year.
| hn92726819 wrote:
| One interesting aspect of this is that when using a personal
| Android with a work profile, developer options and ADB is (or at
| least can be) disabled. BYOD will then imply you can't sideload
| at all.
| bitwize wrote:
| And nothing of value was lost. BYOD means Corporate can push
| whatever spyware they want onto your personal phone. I tell any
| employer I work for, if you really need me to be reachable by
| phone via an app, you can supply me a work phone. Otherwise
| I'll do without. I keep a bright-line distinction between
| personal devices and work devices, and never mix the two. My
| boss knows this explicitly.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| https://fireborn.mataroa.blog/blog/why-the-hell-does-android...
|
| It's disappointing that google has turned evil.
|
| I loved how easy it waa to mod things in the beginning. All that
| is now gone.
| Cameri wrote:
| "Don't be evil"
| bitwize wrote:
| Ever wonder why people online complain that female characters in
| video games are ugly now? Or about "slop" games like Dustborn and
| Concord?
|
| Turns out, there is a foundation called the Geena Davis Institute
| (yes, founded by the actress) which issued guidelines for the
| degree and manner in which women, racial minorities, LGBTQ, and
| other marginalized groups are represented in media including
| games. The industry-wide standards for character design, costume
| design, theming, even mechanics are all set based on these
| guidelines, which have evolved into ironclad requirements. You
| will not get funding for your game, nor support or approval from
| the major platforms (particularly consoles) without complying
| with these guidelines. The function of consultancies like the
| much maligned Sweet Baby Inc. thus comes into greater focus:
| they're there to certify compliance with the rules, without which
| there would be no game. There's even tooling available for Unreal
| or Unity to help developers align with the rules and check their
| work. It's just like ISO 9000 or CMMi: no compliance with the
| guidelines, no contract, no business.
|
| This is also why AAA studios are so worried about indie devs. The
| buzzword is "deprofessionalization". Compliance issues are as
| much a part of game dev as of banking or health care software
| now. So AAA devs are afraid of losing their position to unwashed
| indies who barely know about these issues, let alone have
| procedures in place to ensure compliance. Eventually, I'm sure,
| the response will be to enforce strict compliance even on indie
| studios, perhaps providing programs through companies like Sweet
| Baby to check and ensure compliance at a lower or mass-service
| level in a way that's more affordable for small studios, using AI
| or other automation (similar to the Geena Davis Institute's own
| tool, GDIQ).
|
| My point is not to grouse about muh vidya. My point is that even
| in an industry as freewheeling as gamedev, alignment with laws,
| regulations, and industry norms is now NON-NEGOTIABLE.
| Governments have now taken an interest in what happens online,
| requiring age and identity verification for certain activities.
| Privately, companies may wish to show they're doing due diligence
| to prevent certain unlawful or antisocial activities (enabling
| copyright infringement, radicalization, the grooming of minors
| for instance) to avoid government scrutiny and so will decide, as
| a matter of consortium, to be more strict about what runs on
| their platforms and by whom it was authored.
|
| General purpose computing is dead. Let it die. There's really
| nothing else you can do; you'd be fighting the combined tides of
| government, industry, and public preference. (Curated platforms
| are much nicer for normies than shovel- and malware-laden open
| platforms. Ask any Apple user.) Google is ensuring Android's
| survival into the future by ensuring that it complies with a
| constellation of platform requirements that are likely to emerge
| if not here already, which include ensuring that all user
| programs comply with user program requirements or else face
| removal.
|
| The Wild West days of programming are over. Get used to that
| fact, or leave the field.
|
| (Oh, and by the way, one of GDI's biggest funders was Google.)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-04 23:02 UTC)