This comment is very conspiratorial. While this change is making people more vulnerable to malware and lessening their freedom, the screen lock thing is complete nonsense. Your launcher has been given permission to keep the screen on. If it is the system launcher and that permission was provided automatically, all you need to do is use another launcher.
The official Google blogpost states this timeline:
October 2025: Early access begins. Invitations will be sent out gradually.
March 2026: Verification opens for all developers.
September 2026: These requirements go into effect in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. At this point, any app installed on a certified Android device in these regions must be registered by a verified developer.
2027 and beyond: We will continue to roll out these requirements globally.
There is no PR stunt here, just the need to read. Unless you are considering a PR stunt the claim that it is 50 times more likely to get malware from outside of the Play Store, that is just a complete lie as the Play Store is filled to the brim with malware.
If it is the system launcher and that permission was provided automatically, all you need to do is use another launcher.
I am using stock android on a smartphone that was in the Android One program.
I have not changed the the launcher.
My expectation when keeping the Google first party screen lock thing is for it to not make it easier for me to make the mistake of leaving the phone unlocked.
At this point, any app installed on a certified Android device in these regions must be registered by a verified developer.
And that will mean that if I were to feel like making my own app for the smallest of things and just install it on my own phone, I need to tell Google: “Hey! I am programming for Android!” as if they don’t already have enough of my data.
And then sideloading would probably require signing it with a certificate, so Google will always know that I made a software and installed it on my phone.
There is no PR stunt here
Yes. There is no PR “stunt” here. Not everything that includes PR is a stunt.
Using the phrase “PR flavour text” refers to whatever PR is saying to make the actions of a company, seem less controversial. And that is the main job of a company’s PR department.
In this case, it is:
‘This change aims to reduce malware and scams associated with unverified apps, as sideloaded apps are significantly more likely to contain malicious software’
And yes, that thing is a lie as you already explained. That is why I call it PR flavour text.
2027 and beyond: We will continue to roll out these requirements globally.
This just gives me a deadline for switching to a Linux phone.
Seems to have come earlier than what I thought I would be able to manage, but I will have to manage somehow.
This comment is very conspiratorial. While this change is making people more vulnerable to malware and lessening their freedom, the screen lock thing is complete nonsense. Your launcher has been given permission to keep the screen on. If it is the system launcher and that permission was provided automatically, all you need to do is use another launcher.
The official Google blogpost states this timeline:
October 2025: Early access begins. Invitations will be sent out gradually.
March 2026: Verification opens for all developers.
September 2026: These requirements go into effect in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. At this point, any app installed on a certified Android device in these regions must be registered by a verified developer.
2027 and beyond: We will continue to roll out these requirements globally.
There is no PR stunt here, just the need to read. Unless you are considering a PR stunt the claim that it is 50 times more likely to get malware from outside of the Play Store, that is just a complete lie as the Play Store is filled to the brim with malware.
I am using stock android on a smartphone that was in the Android One program. I have not changed the the launcher.
My expectation when keeping the Google first party screen lock thing is for it to not make it easier for me to make the mistake of leaving the phone unlocked.
And that will mean that if I were to feel like making my own app for the smallest of things and just install it on my own phone, I need to tell Google: “Hey! I am programming for Android!” as if they don’t already have enough of my data.
And then sideloading would probably require signing it with a certificate, so Google will always know that I made a software and installed it on my phone.
Yes. There is no PR “stunt” here. Not everything that includes PR is a stunt.
Using the phrase “PR flavour text” refers to whatever PR is saying to make the actions of a company, seem less controversial. And that is the main job of a company’s PR department.
In this case, it is:
‘This change aims to reduce malware and scams associated with unverified apps, as sideloaded apps are significantly more likely to contain malicious software’
And yes, that thing is a lie as you already explained. That is why I call it PR flavour text.
This just gives me a deadline for switching to a Linux phone.
Seems to have come earlier than what I thought I would be able to manage, but I will have to manage somehow.