For years, Big Tech has promised openness. But with every new policy, the gates are closing. Google’s latest announcement is not about protecting users. It is about control. By forcing every developer to register and be verified, even for apps distributed outside the Play Store, Google is laying the groundwork for a locked-down ecosystem that will make Android look more and more like Apple’s walled-garden iOS, a model built on restrictions, gatekeeping, and diminished freedoms

 

A Dangerous Shift in Android’s DNA

 

For years, Android’s openness set it apart from Apple’s tightly controlled iOS. Developers could distribute apps directly to users through alternative stores or by simple sideloading, without going through corporate gatekeepers. That openness has been one of the last safeguards ensuring diversity, innovation, and resistance against censorship.

 

But this era may soon be over. On August 25, 2025, Google announced that starting in September, 2026, all apps installed on certified Android devices will need to be registered to a verified developer account. Registration will require government-issued identification, business documents for organizations, a verified phone number, and in most cases, a fee of US$25. The program will begin in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand, before rolling out globally in 2027.

 

This move does not simply add bureaucracy. It transforms Android from an open system into something increasingly resembling iOS: locked down, centralized, and subject to surveillance.

 

The Real Risk: Making Developers Easier to Target

 

Google presents the change as a matter of security. Suzanne Frey, Vice President for Product, Trust and Growth at Android, compared the new rules to an airport identity check, ensuring accountability without reviewing the content of apps. Google cited malware statistics, claiming “over 50 times more malware from sideloaded sources than from Play,” to justify the move.

 

But many of the apps caught under these rules will not be malware at all. They will be tools built by independent developers, researchers, civil society organizations, or hobbyists who lack the resources or institutional cover to comply with verification requirements.

 

While Google insists that developers — meaning only those who have gone through its verification process — will retain the freedom to distribute apps directly to users, the reality is different. Developers who cannot or will not register, for reasons of cost, privacy, or safety, will simply be locked out of the Android ecosystem. Their apps will no longer install on most Android devices. 

 

For those who do register, the risks are far from over. By linking every app to a verified identity, Google may make it easier for authoritarian governments to pressure the company to unmask developers of apps they deem problematic, from virtual private networks (VPNs) to secure messaging tools to independent news platforms. Instead of protecting developers’ anonymity, which has long been a shield for those creating censorship-circumvention tools, Google will be creating a ready-made registry of identities. Civil society and users in repressive countries will lose access to apps that allow them to bypass censorship, protect their data, or communicate safely. Even the perception that identities could be exposed will discourage many developers from building the very tools most needed in authoritarian contexts.

 

This is not about keeping out bad actors. It is about stripping away one of the last protections for developers who build tools that challenge censorship and surveillance.

 

Developers themselves have raised the alarm. As one told The Register:

 

“I can install an app onto a Windows computer from any source without verification by Microsoft. An Android device is a computer, like any other computer. It does not have to be this way. It is this way because a giant corporation controls it.”

 

Others point out that Google has consistently made it harder to build and distribute extensions, add-ons, or apps across its platforms. They cite increased paperwork, arbitrary rejections, and unnecessary requirements such as support websites and privacy policies, even for tools shared privately among colleagues.

 

The pattern is unmistakable: incremental restrictions framed as safety that centralize control and reduce openness.

 

Why This Matters for Freedom and Rights

 

GreatFire’s App Censorship Project has documented how Apple has become a willing enforcer of censorship in authoritarian regimes. In 2024, Apple quietly removed over 60 virtual private network apps from its Russia App Store following requests from Roskomnadzor, the country’s censorship body. In China, Apple has long banned independent news outlets, secure messaging apps, and VPNs from its App Store.

 

But this problem is not limited to Apple. Google has also shown its willingness to censor apps. It removed the Boycott app in March 2024, citing misinformation concerns. It banned Parler from the Play Store in 2021 after the January 6 Capitol riot. Even apps like AdBlock, which allowed users to block intrusive ads, have been pushed out in the past. These examples, along with the data collected by GoogleCensorship.org,  demonstrate that Google already acts as a gatekeeper, arbitrarily and without transparency, deciding what users can or cannot access.

 

With the new verification scheme, Google appears to be going further, positioning itself as the sole authority over who can develop for Android at all. Until now, sideloading gave developers and users a genuine alternative. Platforms like F-Droid could operate independently, approving and distributing apps without Google’s involvement. Under the new rules, however, the role of these alternative stores may become precarious. Whether developers will need to go through Google individually, or whether stores like F-Droid could act as intermediaries, remains unclear. What is clear is that the freedom and independence that sideloading once provided are now at risk, as Google moves closer to centralizing control over app distribution.

 

In other words, sideloading may no longer be a true alternative to the Play Store. It might become just another door that requires Google’s key.

 

This centralization of control could have profound consequences. By consolidating authority, Google may make itself more vulnerable to government pressure. Authoritarian regimes would no longer need to deal with multiple actors or alternative stores, since access to apps could increasingly depend on Google’s approval. If developer verification becomes the ultimate requirement for installation on most Android devices, then even apps accepted by alternative marketplaces might still face barriers reaching users.

 

“This might be a turning point,” said Benjamin Ismail, Campaign and Advocacy Director at GreatFire and lead for the App Censorship Project. “Until now Apple was always the company giving us more work, as its ecosystem was already a walled garden. Even the latest wave of takedown requests from the Russian government showed that Google was more reluctant than Apple to exert control over its store. But with this announcement, Google is clearly moving toward practices that are less respectful of freedom and fundamental rights, and this will increase the vulnerability of already at-risk individuals in authoritarian regimes.”

 

Keep Android Open, Protect Freedom

 

What Google calls developer verification is, in reality, an attempt to centralize control over the Android ecosystem. By tying every app, even those distributed outside the Play Store, to its approval system, Google risks killing the openness that made Android distinct. Sideloading will no longer safeguard users and developers. It will simply be another channel that requires Google’s permission.

 

This is not security. It is gatekeeping. And it will have dangerous consequences: empowering governments to silence developers, making censorship easier to enforce, and exposing those who build tools for privacy, secure communication, and free expression to greater risks.

 

Google must change course. If it is serious about openness, it must preserve sideloading as a genuine alternative, not a tightly controlled mirror of the Play Store. Lawmakers should recognize that centralizing digital distribution under a single corporate authority undermines both competition and fundamental freedoms, and should legislate to protect openness. Civil society and non-governmental organizations must continue to monitor and expose these practices. Developers should resist being pushed into self-censorship or compliance with arbitrary rules.

 

“These new rules are bound to increase the number of arbitrary and abusive rejections and removals from the Android ecosystem,” Ismail added. “Setting bad practices from the outset is one thing. But in this day and age, with all the work civil society has done to raise awareness about fundamental freedoms and privacy, to voluntarily move toward practices that expand surveillance and control—knowing full well that it will harm freedom, increase risks, and help authoritarian regimes tighten their grip—is quite another. For these reasons, we will not let this pass. We will intensify our monitoring of Google’s censorship and app curation policies, both inside and outside the Play Store.”.

 

If Android loses its openness, the damage will not be measured only in fewer independent apps or lost innovation. It will be measured in silenced voices, blocked tools, and diminished freedoms worldwide. The path forward must be one of decentralization and freedom, not centralization and control.

 

(Note: Several days before publication, we reached out to Sameer Samat, President of the Android Ecosystem at Google, sharing this article and inviting him to correct any factual errors or provide reassurances about the upcoming changes. As of today’s publication, no response has been received.)