11/5/2025
Rory Eckel
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Google recently announced that starting next year, every Android developer will need to register centrally with them. This isn't just a simple account signup - it requires fees, government ID, private signing keys, and complete disclosure of app identifiers.
The new requirements are substantial. Google wants developers to:
This represents a fundamental shift from Android's original philosophy. The platform that positioned itself as the open alternative to Apple's closed ecosystem is adopting a strikingly similar approach. Google has stated that "sideloading isn't going anywhere," but as F-Droid points out in their recent analysis, this claim is misleading - when all software requires vendor approval, traditional sideloading effectively ceases to exist.
When you purchase an Android device, there's a reasonable expectation that you can install software of your choosing. Want to share an app with friends without going through an app store? Android made that possible. Want to run experimental software? That was part of the appeal.
With mandatory OS updates enforcing this new approval system, that freedom disappears. Devices purchased under one set of expectations will be fundamentally altered through updates.
One of Android's strongest features has always been the ability to build and share software directly. A useful utility app could be shared with friends via APK. Community-focused projects didn't need to navigate approval processes. This direct relationship between developers and users fostered innovation and experimentation.
Under the new system, every developer needs Google's approval before their software can run on Android devices - the same gatekeeper model that Android originally positioned itself against.
The impact extends beyond developer frustration. Several important concerns emerge:
The End of FOSS on Android: This policy represents an existential threat to Free and Open Source Software on Android. FOSS developers typically can't afford registration fees, may not want to submit to corporate terms of service, and often develop software collaboratively without traditional corporate structures. The entire FOSS ecosystem that has thrived on Android - including F-Droid itself and thousands of open-source applications - faces elimination. These aren't hypothetical apps; they're tools that millions of users rely on for privacy, security, and functionality that commercial alternatives don't provide.
Digital Sovereignty: Governments worldwide are effectively ceding control to a private company. Google's history of complying with authoritarian regimes' app removal requests raises questions about how this centralized power might be exercised. This policy affects over 95% of Android devices globally (excluding China), regardless of which app store users choose.
Consumer Rights: Device owners should be able to run legal software of their choosing on hardware they've purchased. This isn't a radical position - it's a fundamental aspect of property ownership. Users who bought Android devices with the expectation of an open computing platform will find their rights non-consensually revoked through mandatory OS updates.
Innovation: Many successful open-source projects began as side endeavors that wouldn't have survived formal approval processes. F-Droid, experimental applications, and community-driven tools all face an uncertain future under this model.
While challenging large tech companies can feel overwhelming, the Keep Android Open campaign offers concrete action items:
For Users:
For Developers:
Android represented something valuable in the mobile ecosystem: a platform where openness wasn't merely marketing language, but a functional reality. Developers could build, share, and experiment without requiring permission from a central authority.
The stated justification for these changes centers on security. Google claims "50 times more malware" comes from sideloaded sources, yet recent incidents included 224 malicious apps in the Play Store itself and 19 million downloads of malware-infected applications through Google's official marketplace. This raises questions about whether centralized corporate approval actually guarantees safety, or whether this is fundamentally about control.
Concentrating this level of power over a supposedly open platform in the hands of a single company creates risks for users, developers, and the innovation ecosystem that has flourished under Android's more permissive model. For the FOSS community in particular, this isn't just a policy change - it's an existential threat to their ability to develop and distribute software on the world's most popular mobile platform.
Whether you're a developer, a power user, or someone who values ownership rights over purchased devices, this development deserves attention. The Keep Android Open campaign is systematically documenting these changes and coordinating responses.
The most significant technology policy shifts often happen quietly, through incremental changes to terms of service and platform requirements. This represents one of those moments where early attention and engagement can still influence outcomes.
Want to learn more or get involved? Check out keepandroidopen.org for resources, contact information for regulators, and ways to support the campaign.
F-Droid. (2025, October 28). What We Talk About When We Talk About Sideloading. https://f-droid.org/en/2025/10/28/sideloading.html
Keep Android Open. (n.d.). https://keepandroidopen.org/