Google's sideloading rule
I'm sure you've heard about this and I'm really sad they're doing this but in case you haven't here's the link: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/google-will-block-sideloading-of-unverified-android-apps-starting-next-year/
My question is this: What ramifications will this have for apps like Termux and FDroid?
Ars Technica
Google will block sideloading of unverified Android apps starting n...
Google says itβs no different than checking IDs at the airport.
25 Replies
nobody knows, and anyone claiming to know is speculating
there's basically no public info except the announcements
I'm working on a tag because we are going to get this question over and over, but it's hard to write anything because... no one knows more than that
There was an X screenie posted in #off-topic which more or less resolved this for me, gimme a sec.
I saw, and I think you misread it
Why???
You do mean this one right?
https://discord.com/channels/641256914684084234/641650601507422218/1411380004519936111
yes. that's quite explicitly about building apks for your own use. says nothing about it being any easier to distribute termux than the announcement implies.
Bc the bottom-line for me is that I don't wanna make a dev account with Google and just keep uploading APKs in a GitHub repo's "Releases" section.
And for users to be able to download and install that APK.
Which is why I asked about how Termux would do things.
I don't think that message at all resolves that
they are specifically trying to prevent what you want
Doesn't it imply that you can still sideload "for yourself" without having to register as a developer?
sure. what does "for yourself" mean?
again, they are clear about the motivation for the change
they are probably not blowing a giant hole in their attempt to achieve that
Building something locally and installing it via adb for example.
Or downloading an APK and installing that via ADB.
if I had to guess, they are planning to have adb connect pull a device-specific cert and adb install to use it transparently
because that would accomplish the goal of letting you do development without registration, without undermining the main goal of making it impossible to do what we're doing and what you want
but who fuckin knows, there's no info out there but this
Makes sense...I guess we'll see. Still annoyed we even have to discuss this smdh
yeah, nothing positive here
"openess"...bruh no, you're gatekeeping app installations.
Apple much?
presenting it as a commitment to or advancement of openness was pretty painfully dishonest, yeah
you can make an argument (that neither of us will buy) that this is a good thing to do, but not for that reason
Thank you for your 2 cents, though and everyone else's.β£οΈ Much appreciated.
In what world would that be the case????
This security argument is a bit flimsy
Because at the end of the day
If a user is sideloading malware, that's their problem.
you are free to view it that way
And nobody elses.
not the only way to view it and probably not the way I want my OS manufacturers to view it
Do tell
malware does, in fact, affect more than the people who install it
True but we can't gatekeep things because of a few irresponsible individuals. Wouldn't you agree that the agency Android users have now is what made Android what it will be until Sept. '26?
Like "You choose and on your own head".
no
there's no single thing that it is
You could tell me what you mean later, if you want.π I gtg do some stuff now. Thank you for your input so far.π
π½
in that it's a constrained app system, it's served one purpose for a huge number of people
it's actually good that there's some structural limits on what random qur'an apps can do
in that it's able to be a phone with a linuxish env that you and I care about, it's served another
I don't think our purpose defines it or anything