https://keepandroidopen.org/ - Resisting Google's plans to restrict Android, sideloading, security/privacy, and more

[RanceJustice]

For those who may not be aware, Google has been taking an increasingly proprietary approach to Android bit by bit over the past several years. The divergence of Pixel devices and their proprietary applications from the AOSP variants is a good place to start, but other factors including an increasingly stringent "SafetyNet" checksums making it difficult to run custom ROMs or even just individual apps with a (knowingly) unlocked bootloader, among other issues over recent years. However, there is a big potential change on the horizon that would essentially reduce Android to a near-Apple level of lockdown and its detailed here - https://keepandroidopen.org/ .

Essentially, Google plans to mandate that anyone who wants to develop an application that works on a standard Android installation (as opposed to a specifically bypassed dev-mode option) would have to register with Google, including providing their real life ID. If this goes through, it will no longer be possible for some Android developers, notably the Free and Open Source community such as F-Droid, to simply develop their APKs independently and have them work on standard Android installs. Instead, as of September 2026 Android will claim these applications have unverified keys, and refuse to run unless the user goes through a process that is several times more involved than even sideloading/approving install from non-Play Store applications, instantly causing their OS to fail SafetyNet checks and thus apps - like those for Banking or other secure functions - to refuse to work. This will have the effect of normalizing removing what were previously normal security safeguards and thus open the attack surface to actual malware.

Though the aforementioned technical vulnerabilities are a concern they are dwarfed by the astounding privacy, usability, and ethical implications that will come from Android blocking any app that isn't tied to a "properly verified developer" using Google approved accounts and keys. Once again faux "security" justifications arebeing used as an excuse to quash the openness that made platform desirable for so many years, in favor of Google being practically the sole arbiter of who can develop and what apps are allowed on Android devices. If this comes to fruition its likely that state level actors like China capable of forking and running an independent 'hard fork' version of Android will be an option to sidestep the issue, but that's its own conversation with its own considerable downsides. Some have proposed that Android device manufacturers will intercede even out of their own self interest but this is not likely to benefit users or conceptual openness - we can see how just this month Samsung is apparently removing access to the bootloader features, sideloading updates, ADB and other features from its latest Galaxy devices - https://archive.is/2nvO0 .

There are still things that we can do to hopefully pressure Google to reverse course. The outcry at the start of the announcement is why Google bothered to suggest there may be an "advanced flow" to allow people to "accept the risks of unverified software", however there have not been further details and the description of the program still is unchanged. The KeepAndroidOpen page, as well as a few to which it links, detail things that developers and users can do to voice their objection to such a policy and all the hypothetical harms that could come from its implementation. Banners, reminiscent of those used for past successful campaigns by the EFF against SOPA/PIPA are available for site owners interested and are already present on F-Droid. However, the biggest thing is simply to spread awareness of Google's plans to those who develop on Android, FOSS independently developed Android apps, Fdroid / NeoStore , Obtanium and other manners to install apps from repositories outside Google Play, Custom ROM users, and more in the hopes they'll make their voices heard.

 

[Aurelius]

For those who may not be aware, Google has been taking an increasingly proprietary approach to Android bit by bit over the past several years. The divergence of Pixel devices and their proprietary applications from the AOSP variants is a good place to start, but other factors including an increasingly stringent "SafetyNet" checksums making it difficult to run custom ROMs or even just individual apps with a (knowingly) unlocked bootloader, among other issues over recent years. However, there is a big potential change on the horizon that would essentially reduce Android to a near-Apple level of lockdown and its detailed here - https://keepandroidopen.org/ .

Essentially, Google plans to mandate that anyone who wants to develop an application that works on a standard Android installation (as opposed to a specifically bypassed dev-mode option) would have to register with Google, including providing their real life ID. If this goes through, it will no longer be possible for some Android developers, notably the Free and Open Source community such as F-Droid, to simply develop their APKs independently and have them work on standard Android installs. Instead, as of September 2026 Android will claim these applications have unverified keys, and refuse to run unless the user goes through a process that is several times more involved than even sideloading/approving install from non-Play Store applications, instantly causing their OS to fail SafetyNet checks and thus apps - like those for Banking or other secure functions - to refuse to work. This will have the effect of normalizing removing what were previously normal security safeguards and thus open the attack surface to actual malware.

Though the aforementioned technical vulnerabilities are a concern they are dwarfed by the astounding privacy, usability, and ethical implications that will come from Android blocking any app that isn't tied to a "properly verified developer" using Google approved accounts and keys. Once again faux "security" justifications arebeing used as an excuse to quash the openness that made platform desirable for so many years, in favor of Google being practically the sole arbiter of who can develop and what apps are allowed on Android devices. If this comes to fruition its likely that state level actors like China capable of forking and running an independent 'hard fork' version of Android will be an option to sidestep the issue, but that's its own conversation with its own considerable downsides. Some have proposed that Android device manufacturers will intercede even out of their own self interest but this is not likely to benefit users or conceptual openness - we can see how just this month Samsung is apparently removing access to the bootloader features, sideloading updates, ADB and other features from its latest Galaxy devices - https://archive.is/2nvO0 .

There are still things that we can do to hopefully pressure Google to reverse course. The outcry at the start of the announcement is why Google bothered to suggest there may be an "advanced flow" to allow people to "accept the risks of unverified software", however there have not been further details and the description of the program still is unchanged. The KeepAndroidOpen page, as well as a few to which it links, detail things that developers and users can do to voice their objection to such a policy and all the hypothetical harms that could come from its implementation. Banners, reminiscent of those used for past successful campaigns by the EFF against SOPA/PIPA are available for site owners interested and are already present on F-Droid. However, the biggest thing is simply to spread awareness of Google's plans to those who develop on Android, FOSS independently developed Android apps, Fdroid / NeoStore , Obtanium and other manners to install apps from repositories outside Google Play, Custom ROM users, and more in the hopes they'll make their voices heard.

I understand the campaign, but I don't expect Google to respond to it.

People forget that Google has always held Android on a leash. It was mainly open for OEMs and carriers, and openness for customers was an almost-incidental benefit. The goal was to drive adoption of services; AOSP would keep vendors building with Android, but the dream was to have you buy a licensed device that would show Gmail ads, keep you using Chrome, and (later on) drive subscriptions to services like Google One.

As such, the company was always ready to close down Android when it could.

 

[Darunion]

Pressure google, switch to apple! Which probably still wont work, people will come back anyways.

 

[RanceJustice]

I understand the campaign, but I don't expect Google to respond to it.

People forget that Google has always held Android on a leash. It was mainly open for OEMs and carriers, and openness for customers was an almost-incidental benefit. The goal was to drive adoption of services; AOSP would keep vendors building with Android, but the dream was to have you buy a licensed device that would show Gmail ads, keep you using Chrome, and (later on) drive subscriptions to services like Google One.

As such, the company was always ready to close down Android when it could.

Google does not need to respond to it specifically, simply avert plans for the new lockdown policies. While OEMs and Carriers were part of it, the customers bit was important not just in and of itself, but also for developers. The vast majority of users are not Pixel users who even have the default Google applications for everything - they're using what variants that Samsung or LG or Huawei or whatever else pushes (and in some cases its not even connected to the Play Store). The issue here is that most technically adept developers, the reason that Google has both storefronts and platforms as popular as they are, are going to be against this change. They're not going to want to have to submit all their information in order for their apps, be it proprietary, FOSS or otherwise, to work on an unmodified Android device. For a very long time there was no problem if a user wanted ot make use of FDroid alongside Google Play apps, or if they only distributed their app on some Chinese or otherwise local, non-Play app store et.c. but all of this becomes suspect. Sure, some megacorp regional players may get away from it if they have no connection to Google at all and simply fork Android entirely and run a separate branch like how OnePlus does with their CN version of the OS vs the Global version, but there are a lot of other users and developers outside of that setting.

Google should also be around long enough to know that closing down Android was basicallyt killing the golden goose, plus making your devs and most devoted users angry is not likely to work out for you. Even Discord figured that out recently and had to back pedal for a choice that, while equally as ideologically objectionable, had true effect on FAR less users than what Google is planning with Android. Google spent years validating that people chose Android because of the openness, in contrast to Apple. When Apple required you to "jailbreak" your phone just to use an unofficial app store, Google could say "Hey, why go through the trouble? We let you do that right here. Here, root your ROM! Modify it if you know what you're doing! If you're tired of The Apple Way (tm) being the only accepted way to do things, come on over!" and it brought a lot of users and devs alike to the platform. For them to shoot themselves in the foot here with such a decision makes little sense. Who's going to want to patronize Google services after they do something like this? Why would you want to subscribe to One or pay for the fancy Geminai if its possible they'll just lock things down even more and take away what you enjoyed about it ?

This is a kind of enshittification that is affects not just hardware manufacturers and carriers but every developer and user on the platform. Some who only use Google Play and nothing else will not care, but a huge swathe of users and perhaps more importantly developers will object if this continues as designed.

Pressure google, switch to apple! Which probably still wont work, people will come back anyways.

Heh, going from newly trying out lockdown to a decade of lockdown as policy isn't likely to help. Thankfully the page listed and similar campaigns have suggestions other than just moving to Apple.

 

[MrGuvernment]

RanceJustice would be curious, how many Android users even know about side loading apks' or anything else? Willing to bet the majority of Android users are the every day people who just go to the app store, install said apps they use and go on about their day, while letting google suck up all of their data.

Dev's wont leave..because where will they go? Especially one's who have well known apps....

 

[Aurelius]

Google does not need to respond to it specifically, simply avert plans for the new lockdown policies. While OEMs and Carriers were part of it, the customers bit was important not just in and of itself, but also for developers. The vast majority of users are not Pixel users who even have the default Google applications for everything - they're using what variants that Samsung or LG or Huawei or whatever else pushes (and in some cases its not even connected to the Play Store). The issue here is that most technically adept developers, the reason that Google has both storefronts and platforms as popular as they are, are going to be against this change. They're not going to want to have to submit all their information in order for their apps, be it proprietary, FOSS or otherwise, to work on an unmodified Android device. For a very long time there was no problem if a user wanted ot make use of FDroid alongside Google Play apps, or if they only distributed their app on some Chinese or otherwise local, non-Play app store et.c. but all of this becomes suspect. Sure, some megacorp regional players may get away from it if they have no connection to Google at all and simply fork Android entirely and run a separate branch like how OnePlus does with their CN version of the OS vs the Global version, but there are a lot of other users and developers outside of that setting.

Google should also be around long enough to know that closing down Android was basicallyt killing the golden goose, plus making your devs and most devoted users angry is not likely to work out for you. Even Discord figured that out recently and had to back pedal for a choice that, while equally as ideologically objectionable, had true effect on FAR less users than what Google is planning with Android. Google spent years validating that people chose Android because of the openness, in contrast to Apple. When Apple required you to "jailbreak" your phone just to use an unofficial app store, Google could say "Hey, why go through the trouble? We let you do that right here. Here, root your ROM! Modify it if you know what you're doing! If you're tired of The Apple Way (tm) being the only accepted way to do things, come on over!" and it brought a lot of users and devs alike to the platform. For them to shoot themselves in the foot here with such a decision makes little sense. Who's going to want to patronize Google services after they do something like this? Why would you want to subscribe to One or pay for the fancy Geminai if its possible they'll just lock things down even more and take away what you enjoyed about it ?

This is a kind of enshittification that is affects not just hardware manufacturers and carriers but every developer and user on the platform. Some who only use Google Play and nothing else will not care, but a huge swathe of users and perhaps more importantly developers will object if this continues as designed.


Heh, going from newly trying out lockdown to a decade of lockdown as policy isn't likely to help. Thankfully the page listed and similar campaigns have suggestions other than just moving to Apple.

When I say I don't expect Google to respond, I mean it won't change its plans.

Like it or not, Google's "golden goose" has always been licensed Android devices with official apps and the Play Store. Enthusiasts represent only a small slice of the audience, and Google doesn't make money from someone sideloading an app or installing a third-party launcher. In fact, apps from beyond the Play Store are frequently a liability: most Android malware comes from either web downloads or third-party shops that don't properly screen app submissions. In Google's view, requiring app signing helps sales by reducing security issues and fostering trust.

You don't have to like that Google is doing this. But it is important to understand that, in the real world, few people come to Android for "freedom." They come because it's the OS on the phone they can afford. They come because most of the manufacturers in their region use it. Enthusiasts often come because it's the platform that powers their monster camera phone or foldable. And one of my points was that Google baited-and-switched customers like you: in the early days, it pitched Android as a bastion of openness versus the eeeeeevil tyranny of Apple when, in truth, it just wanted to show you ads and take cuts from Play Store purchases.

 

[Darunion]

What this means for your rights​

➤ You, the consumer, purchased your Android device believing in Google’s promise that it was an open computing platform and that you could run whatever software you choose on it. Instead, as of September 2026, they will be non-consensually pushing an update to your operating system that irrevocably blocks this right and leaves you at the mercy of their judgement over what software you are permitted to trust.

I honestly feel most phone/tablet users couldn't come up with the name or version number of their os on their device. Crappy move sure, but I doubt there is enough people that care about this to make a whisper at a concert, which sucks. Even myself as an iphone user, android being so contrast to apple is nice.

 

[pendragon1]

yeah plebs dont care about sideloading and they are 95% of the market.
bring back windows phone.

 

[Mad Maxx]

This would've mattered a lot more to me years ago when I was a rabid Android rooter (and iPhone jailbreaker). I grew weary of the constant maintenance, though. Now, I just make a few adjustments through the launcher.

 

[MrGuvernment]

As others said, those of us who like to root or side load apps, are likely less than 1% of the entire Android user market when it comes to mobile phones and even tablets.

Darunion Google EULA also likley states somewhere they can change their agreements any time with out prior notification, as all large companies do to cover their butts and let them modify anything they provide, any time, how ever they see fit.

 

[RanceJustice]

RanceJustice would be curious, how many Android users even know about side loading apks' or anything else? Willing to bet the majority of Android users are the every day people who just go to the app store, install said apps they use and go on about their day, while letting google suck up all of their data.

Dev's wont leave..because where will they go? Especially one's who have well known apps....

While I agree there's a large populace who act exactly as you mention, when it comes to more advanced use I'd call it a very significant minority, at least in developed, English speaking countries. The situation may be completely different elsewhere for varying reasons, but without knowing the language and local metrics, it hard to know how accurate or representative certain usage may be. In any event, if we're counting knowledge/behavior from manually installing an APK all the way up to rooting and flashing a custom ROM, it seems to be a considerable population. While only a handful of enthusiasts and developers may go as far as flashing a custom ROM, manual install of an APK or sideloading an alternate app store is much more prevalent. Consider that Tim Sweeney, of Epic / Unreal and more recently Fortnite fame/infamy, was at one point attempting to get users to sideload Fortnite in order to avoid giving a cut of in-app purchases to Play's billing system. Though there have also been some recent changes due to a settlement between Google and Epic that could be worth discussing on their own, Fortnite being a massively popular title especially with younger players was a catalyst for a relatively massive new motivation in sideloading manually or via alternate app store; accompanying YouTube/Tiktok tutorials offered further confirmation of new interest among this demographic.

There are many other facets of users that fall into the 'advanced' Android user demographic as well. Lots of Free and Open Source software users are perhaps some of the most well known. F-Droid, the repository server (and meta-format that allows devs to set up their own servers compatible with F-droid apps) and project that verifies and hosts FOSS apps, is a popular venue to host and develop them. There's also plenty of development on independent Github/Codeberg style repos, and utlilities like Obtainium make downloading and updating from them easier and unified. Some of these apps are quite popular with a considerable userbase and whle some FOSS apps are available on Google Play as well (Proton, Mullvad, Bitwarden's Android apps for example, and KeePassDX), but others such as the very popular NewPipe (https://newpipe.net/) and its forks (notably Tubular and the even more extensive PipePipe - https://pipepipe.dev/) are not, for varying reasons. In the case of NewPipe/PipePipe, it is an alternative client for YouTube (and others like PeerTube) that not only merges the cloudsourced SponsorBlock functionality but more importantly blocks YT ads and trackers, allowing users to create subscriptions and lists locally without a YT/Google account etc. Many of these FOSS utilities and repositories have millions of downloads visible in some partial metrics. There are also myriad tech-related channels that are growing with focus on the use of FOSS, including for Android, but with even "major" tech channels w/ millions of subscribers like LinusTechTips, GamersNexus, SomeOrdinaryGamers, and the like dedicating some time to Linux, Android, and FOSS issues its spreading beyond the niche audiences (even if we consider 'niche' to be those with hundreds of thousands of subscriptions to a channel vs millions).

This is part of a larger overall interest in FOSS, Linux, privacy, security, and generally increasing distrust for proprietary platforms with the "enshittification" that has been accelerating in recent years, combined with concerns about how corporations and (especially lately) the governments they have "regulatory capture'd" are weaponizing surveillance more aggressively. The recent issue with the current US administration pressuring both Apple and Google to remove certain applications they felt to be politically objectionable served to highlight authoritarian behavior, but Apple and particularly Google capitulating on the issue despite firm legal footing and precedent, as well as uneven enforcement (ie. plenty of PlayStore apps including Google's own Maps, Waze etc.. allow crowdsourced information of speed camera, speed traps, and police activity, to say nothing for apps in other countries where users notify of gov't or law enforcement presence) sparked further questions of the centralization and control of these app stores and the platforms that control them. Thankfully, apps removed from Play Store could be easily installed via sideloaded APK or hosted upon an alternate repository, showcasing another benefit for Android, but come September 2026 if things proceed as planned, that may no longer be the case. If an app's developer does not have Google's approval, with all that entails including personal information (to say nothing for the now much greater likelihood that said information will be turned over to without warrant or due process, should you app catch the ire of the administration), then its possible it will not install on standard Android devices; a factor that has never been the case before. Even those who have no plans to court controversy in their use or development will see the chilling effect of such a policy and likely object to it.

While there may be a mass of users who have uncomplicated and unquestioning use of an Android device with Google Play, they tend to be within the social proximity of an enthusiast who impact their usage. Family, friends, significant others etc.. purchasing or using certain hardware or platforms on advice of the "Tech person" nearby; on [H] we're likely that person for our familities and acquaintences. Even those who have digital connections with streamers and tech reviewers/content creators/tutorial makers experience a version of this. Its generally unwise as with previous examples (ie Discord) to create negative PR and drama over a policy that, even if it may effect relative few like in that case, but fanned the flames that go far beyond those directly affected. This sort of thing acts as a force multiplier compared to 'just' the enthusiasts, developers and other advanced users themselves. Suffice it to say, while it may not be every user who is personally using these features , there is a significant contingent who are either directly affected, with the knowledge and interests to object on principle, or within the proximity and relying upon someone who does.

 

[Darunion]

Estimated 3.9B android devices. Even millions (39million is still only 1%) of angry people isn't enough to make a dent. You severely overestimate the size of the group you are in.

Problem is we already let google grow too big to wrangle in. Complaining and petitioning them or using different stores will make zero difference. This is where you need legislation to push them away from being able to change EULA significantly like this.

They used to just be the go to no BS search engine that always found what you needed. Once they starved out everyone else, it became a giant billboard for ads. They have always been wanting the next way to control what you see and monetize it.

 

[Aurelius]

While there may be a mass of users who have uncomplicated and unquestioning use of an Android device with Google Play, they tend to be within the social proximity of an enthusiast who impact their usage. Family, friends, significant others etc.. purchasing or using certain hardware or platforms on advice of the "Tech person" nearby; on [H] we're likely that person for our familities and acquaintences. Even those who have digital connections with streamers and tech reviewers/content creators/tutorial makers experience a version of this. Its generally unwise as with previous examples (ie Discord) to create negative PR and drama over a policy that, even if it may effect relative few like in that case, but fanned the flames that go far beyond those directly affected. This sort of thing acts as a force multiplier compared to 'just' the enthusiasts, developers and other advanced users themselves. Suffice it to say, while it may not be every user who is personally using these features , there is a significant contingent who are either directly affected, with the knowledge and interests to object on principle, or within the proximity and relying upon someone who does.

This isn't really supported by the evidence, in part because it requires a succession of things to be true:

1. You have to know an enthusiast.
2. They have to be inclined to share their views with you.
3. They have to care enough about sideloading to be upset.
4. They have to be so upset that they'd urge you to boycott.
5. But they also stop you from buying an iPhone.
6. And through all of this, you value their stance enough to take action.

You see the issue here? The number of everyday people who'd meet that criteria is likely to be small. And issues like this won't create cultural upheavals so large that people have negative views of Android without knowing the exact reasons behind them.

It also helps to consider real-life scenarios. Let's say you live in Mumbai and make the city's average income of $438 US. Even most budget phones will consume a large chunk of your monthly wages, so you can't be picky about what you buy. You're extremely unlikely to know any enthusiasts; if you can afford to watch YouTube at all, you're probably not watching tech channels. So you're not only unlikely to know about this uproar, you literally can't afford to care. You're just happy that you can get a phone to chat on WhatsApp.

In other regions that dynamic changes, but there are still going to be many situations (even in North America) where someone knows zero enthusiasts, doesn't consume tech media, and doesn't have the luxury of taking an ideological stance against Google.