The same author also put identical wording on all of their actively maintained Android apps (SherpaTTS, Whisper IME, gptAssist, GPS Cockpit, etc.: https://github.com/woheller69)
Google might have to be careful how hard they push on security+greed+control tactics like this.
I think that most of the world is overdue to replace their ubiquitous computing devices with ones not controlled by the US, and the current administration's behavior must be accelerating those thoughts.
(BTW, if a platform were designed for security-first, rather than corporate-surveillance-and-and-passive-engagement-first, it wouldn't as much matter who wrote whatever "app" code ran on it.)
They're clearly betting on Trump to strong-arm the EU into dropping the DMA, or not enforcing it on US tech giants. And sadly, it seems like that could work.
I assume, since the statement specifically mentions CERTIFIED devices, that they do intend to further develop the app.
As always with Google policies, this means users will need to jump through more and more hoops (as today with custom ROMs and banking apps already).
I really hope first and foremost that this policy can be reverted, and if not, that the community develops means of technological circumvention (examples mentioned by others include an "app runner" app or letting others identify the app).
It is a sad state the Android ecosystem is heading to.
Soon there'll be a marketplace, where you can, for a few dollars, "hire a dev". They will use their identity documents and help you in obtaining a signing certificate.
Things can only go downhill from here, and it's hard to imagine how things could get any better. I mean, I can only hope Google will change their minds and see sense here.
I think people underestimate just how bad this will become.
First they will use Remote Attestation against users. Not only will your certified device not run unsigned apps, your uncertified device won't run certified apps (already happening [0])
Than more and more services will require you to own a google certified device. Banks, Governments, Insurance, Postal Service, everyone. (see also [0] for examples)
Soon you'll live in a world where you are forced to own and regularly use a device certified and controlled by either Google, Apple or Microsoft without exception and no way around it.
The app's README has recently been updated to include the statement: "Google has announced that, starting in 2026/2027, all apps on certified Android devices will require the developer to submit personal identity details directly to Google. Since the developers of this app do not agree to this requirement, this app will no longer work on certified Android devices after that time."
I'm past the point where I care if my next device has "phone" features like calling and SMS. I'm fine with technical limitations, but I'm done with Apple and Google adding artificial ones.
Maybe I'll get a used Librem5. I'd get a Jolla phone, but they don't ship to the US. But honestly in my research, there's been no blogs I can find that compare these 3rd party phones to each other that aren't like 4 years old and outdated.
Take a look at FuriPhone. It runs Debian with an Android kernel and runs Android apps in a container. Out of all the Linux phones out there, this is the most interesting one to me. Though I'm still just a bystander. I haven't tried it yet.
The term of art here is “voice-centric”. Where “voice” refers not specifically to voice communications, but the first-class coupling between cellular modems and the IP multimedia subsystems (IMS) core that mobile network operators run to provide VoLTE and messaging services.
It’s a moat designed to protect the incumbents and raise the barrier to entry for any competitors in the mobile networking space.
You'll soon find that those phones will be useless because you are required to own a certified device to interact with your government, bank, insurance company, postal service etc. I can see it happen every day.
And in this instance it makes sense, because the status has changed.
Everyone is pissed at Apple for doing that sort of things, but personally I don’t blame them: they were clear on the restrictions from the start and there are literally no surprises when buying a device from them. If you don’t like that, just don’t buy from them…
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores the market consequences of Apple doing that sort of thing. Clearly, it is quite profitable — we can see the direct and indirect impacts to Apple's bottom line, and the other major phone company is trying to do the same thing. The result of this behavior being permitted at all, is that reasonable phones become unavailable. Even if some niche company makes such a phone, it will be very expensive and very poorly supported with interfacing with the rest of the world. This de-facto forces everyone into such a hobbled phone.
This would be understandable if there were real advantages to having phones hobbled in this way, but this is not the case. It's analogous to every car company putting spyware in. Most people don't know or care enough to care, but the spyware is still not meaningfully helping them. It's ubiquitous because it's profitable and you can't get a car that is not designed as profit seeking endeavor first and foremost.
>> If you don’t like that, just don’t buy from them…
That’s such a lazy argument. The restrictions shouldn’t exist in the first place. Or at the very least should exist in a way that can be disabled for those that actually want control over the stuff they own.
So now that the status has changed and the change has been announced, it'll OK if it's forevermore impossible to buy a well-supported phone that lets you run whatever software you please?
On edit: By the way, that's the biggest reason I don't use Apple, and the biggest reason I haven't used Apple since "smart phones" became a thing. Otherwise Apple is superior in a lot of ways. I do realize that people who give a shit are a tiny sliver of the market...
I think that most of the world is overdue to replace their ubiquitous computing devices with ones not controlled by the US, and the current administration's behavior must be accelerating those thoughts.
(BTW, if a platform were designed for security-first, rather than corporate-surveillance-and-and-passive-engagement-first, it wouldn't as much matter who wrote whatever "app" code ran on it.)
As always with Google policies, this means users will need to jump through more and more hoops (as today with custom ROMs and banking apps already). I really hope first and foremost that this policy can be reverted, and if not, that the community develops means of technological circumvention (examples mentioned by others include an "app runner" app or letting others identify the app).
It is a sad state the Android ecosystem is heading to.
Soon you'll live in a world where you are forced to own and regularly use a device certified and controlled by either Google, Apple or Microsoft without exception and no way around it.
[0] https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
Maybe I'll get a used Librem5. I'd get a Jolla phone, but they don't ship to the US. But honestly in my research, there's been no blogs I can find that compare these 3rd party phones to each other that aren't like 4 years old and outdated.
https://furilabs.com/
It’s a moat designed to protect the incumbents and raise the barrier to entry for any competitors in the mobile networking space.
Everyone is pissed at Apple for doing that sort of things, but personally I don’t blame them: they were clear on the restrictions from the start and there are literally no surprises when buying a device from them. If you don’t like that, just don’t buy from them…
This would be understandable if there were real advantages to having phones hobbled in this way, but this is not the case. It's analogous to every car company putting spyware in. Most people don't know or care enough to care, but the spyware is still not meaningfully helping them. It's ubiquitous because it's profitable and you can't get a car that is not designed as profit seeking endeavor first and foremost.
That’s such a lazy argument. The restrictions shouldn’t exist in the first place. Or at the very least should exist in a way that can be disabled for those that actually want control over the stuff they own.
On edit: By the way, that's the biggest reason I don't use Apple, and the biggest reason I haven't used Apple since "smart phones" became a thing. Otherwise Apple is superior in a lot of ways. I do realize that people who give a shit are a tiny sliver of the market...