According to TheRegister.com, Google plans to require all apps installed on certified Android devices to come from verified developers starting in 2026, sparking a “Keep Android Open” movement organized by software developer Marc Prud’hommeaux. The petition, which has received support from an estimated 90-95% of Android developers according to Prud’hommeaux, aims to challenge Google’s plan and alert regulators to antitrust implications. Google claims the verification creates “crucial accountability” against malicious actors, requiring a one-time $25 fee, government ID, and agreement to Google’s terms. The enforcement will begin in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand in September 2026, with additional regions to follow. This developer rebellion represents a fundamental challenge to Google’s expanding control over the Android ecosystem.
Table of Contents
The Stakes for Android Openness
What makes this conflict particularly significant is that Android was originally conceived as an open alternative to Apple’s walled garden. The “Keep Android Open” movement represents a defense of that original vision against what many see as gradual enclosure. Unlike Apple’s iOS, Android has historically allowed users to install applications from any source through sideloading—a feature that has enabled alternative app stores, custom ROMs, and specialized applications that don’t meet Google Play Store guidelines. This openness has been particularly crucial in markets where Google services are restricted or where developers want to distribute apps without Google’s 30% commission.
The Security-Accountability Dilemma
While Google frames this as a security measure, the reality is more complex. The company’s security justification raises legitimate questions about whether identity verification actually prevents sophisticated malware. Many security experts argue that determined malicious actors can easily bypass identity checks using stolen credentials or shell companies, while legitimate developers face additional barriers. More importantly, Google’s own track record with Play Store security—including the recent discovery of 77 malicious apps with millions of downloads—undermines the argument that centralized control automatically improves security.
The Business Model Implications
This verification requirement represents a strategic business move that extends Google’s revenue and control model beyond the Play Store. By requiring all Android developers to register through Google’s system—regardless of distribution channel—the company positions itself as the gatekeeper of the entire Android ecosystem. This has profound implications for competing app stores like F-Droid and emerging commercial alternatives that currently operate outside Google’s oversight. The requirement effectively forces developers who want to distribute through these alternative channels to still submit to Google’s terms and verification process.
The Regulatory Landscape
The timing of this move is particularly interesting given the global regulatory scrutiny of big tech platforms. The European Union’s Digital Markets Act specifically targets gatekeeper power, while countries like Brazil have been increasingly assertive in tech regulation. Google’s planned rollout in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand in 2026 will likely face regulatory challenges, especially since these markets have diverse regulatory environments and different relationships with Google’s ecosystem. The movement’s outreach to regulators in multiple jurisdictions suggests this could become another front in the global battle over platform control.
The Future of Android Development
If implemented as planned, this policy could fundamentally reshape Android development. Small developers, hobbyists, and open-source contributors—the very people who helped Android become successful—may find the verification requirements and associated bureaucracy prohibitive. The requirement to declare current and future app identifiers could stifle experimentation and rapid iteration. Meanwhile, the distinction between “sideloading” and legitimate alternative distribution methods becomes increasingly blurred, potentially limiting user choice and innovation in the broader Android ecosystem.
Broader Industry Implications
This conflict reflects a larger trend in the technology industry where platform owners are increasingly asserting control over their ecosystems. We’ve seen similar dynamics with Chrome extension changes affecting ad blockers and Apple’s ongoing battles with alternative app distribution. The outcome of this Android developer rebellion could set important precedents for how much control platform owners can exercise over software distribution on devices they don’t actually manufacture. As app stores continue to dominate software distribution, the balance between security, control, and openness remains one of the most contentious issues in technology policy.
