Here's how Android Identity Check will start taking advantage of your smartwatch (APK teardown)
TL;DR Identity Check offers an extra layer of protection when someone steals both your phone and your PIN.
By requiring biometrics, Identity Check attempts to limit the harm bad actors could do.
Google is working to let you bypass that biometric requirement when your device is connected to a trusted smartwatch.
We all want our devices to be secure, but practical considerations mean we're often striking a balance between security and convenience. That's not a bad thing at all, as we don't always need to be taking advantage of every security protection available to us, and systems like Android's Identity Check are built for just this reason, letting us get away with just using a PIN or biometrics when we're at home, but beefing up security and insisting on both when outside a trusted location.
Just last week, we looked at one way Identity Check could soon be changing, with the tool evolving to recognizing the presence of your connected smartwatch. At the time it wasn't yet clear exactly how the watch would alter Identity Check's behavior, but now it's starting to come into focus.
⚠️ An APK teardown helps predict features that may arrive on a service in the future based on work-in-progress code. However, it is possible that such predicted features may not make it to a public release.
Identity Check is designed to help save your bacon when you're in just about the worst situation: someone else not only has your phone, but they also have your PIN. Maybe they shoulder-surfed while you were unlocking the phone, or used threats to get you to reveal it, but Identity Check is built to assume that your PIN's been compromised. That's exactly why it also insists upon biometric authentication when trying to access saved passwords or change critical security settings from anywhere other than a trusted location.
Here are the strings we spotted last time we looked:
Code Copy Text With your watch connected, Identity Check automatically recognizes you while maintaining your security even when you're not in a trusted location Protection on the move with watch
Those made it clear that Google's working on a way for Identity Check to use the presence of a paired watch as a signal of trust, just in the way a location already can. But what we didn't have at the time was confirmation of how Identity Check would work differently when it sensed your watch.
Looking through the new 25.31.30 beta release of Google Play Services, we've spotted an additional string that provides some answers:
Code Copy Text Outside of trusted places like your home • If you have a connected watch, you can use either biometrics or your PIN • If you don't have a connected watch, you'll be required to use Fingerprint or Face Unlock
There we go: When you're using Identity Check with a smartwatch it recognizes, you'll be able to bypass the need to enter a PIN, even when away from home. Basically, it's like two-factor authentication, and you've got to choose any two of the three: PIN, biometrics, or the presence of your watch.
We supposed it is conceivable that someone manages to learn your PIN, steal your phone, and also take your smartwatch, so hopefully there's a setting to choose whether or not we want to take advantage of this option once it finally arrives.
Follow
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
How ‘Vibe Coding' Is Creating A New AI Economy
In early January, 18‑year‑old Justin Jin launched Giggles — an AI-powered social entertainment app that's reportedly attracted over 120,000 waitlist sign-ups and generated 150 million impressions — all without a venture capital war chest, a marketing budget, or a traditional engineering team. Instead, he and his team of young co-founders leveraged AI to build an app for Gen Alpha and Gen Z, where users interact through AI-generated content, digital collectibles and gamified social engagements. A few weeks later, another startup arrived on the scene — Base44, founded by a non-technical creator who used AI to 'vibe code' a no-code development platform. Within six months and under ten people, it reached profitability, pulled in 300,000 users and sold to Wix for $80 million in cash, according to TechCrunch. Suddenly, a new archetype emerged: Companies not founded on traditional engineering teams, but shaped by creativity, culture and AI orchestration. This is the story of the moment. AI is redefining entrepreneurship, allowing people with a vision and cultural understanding — but not necessarily computer-science degrees — to ship platform-level products. But questions are mounting: Can this new model of entrepreneurship scale beyond prototype success without deeper engineering muscle? The Rise Of Vibe Coding Two years ago, the phrase 'vibe coding' barely existed. Today, it's everywhere. The term — coined by Andrej Karpathy, former AI lead at Tesla and cofounder of OpenAI — describes writing with AI by simply speaking ideas. 'You fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials and forget that the code even exists,' Karpathy tweeted in February. It's shorthand for a new era, where programming is done through a natural language like English. According to Garry Tan, CEO of Y Combinator, many startups now use AI to generate up to 95% of their codebase — achieving results that once required teams of 50 to 100 engineers with fewer than ten people. Meanwhile, in a recent article for Business Insider, Alistair Barr highlighted how 'non‑traditional, AI‑native developers' are turning natural language into apps, fundamentally altering SaaS economics. This shift is democratizing entrepreneurship. Product managers, artists, even high-schoolers can now ship products faster than ever before, all without technical expertise. But it also comes with some problems. As Nigel Douglas, head of developer relations at Cloudsmith, cautioned in the Financial Times, 'If you're creating an app in your spare time, a 'DIY disaster' might just mean an ugly interface. But in a business setting, the wrong tool can do real damage and result in data breaches, service outages, or a compromised software supply chain.' GitHub CEO Thomas Dohmke echoed this warning at the just-concluded VivaTech in Paris: 'A non‑technical founder will find it difficult to build a startup at scale without developers,' adding that tools like vibe coding don't provide the depth needed to justify serious investment. Even AI-native founders acknowledge the model's limitations. 'There's a need to build technical depth. We know that's important and are expanding engineering operations and bringing on advisors,' said Edwin Wang, co-founder of Giggles. 'The future, however, must be a community-governed and decentralized future where there's a balance between creativity and coding.' When Creativity Replaces Code: The Giggles Test Case Giggles is a microcosm of this transformation. Jin, alongside co-founders Edwin Wang and music artist Matthew Hershoff, built a system where users are rewarded for digital expression through game-like interactions — including AI-generated videos, collectible content, and daily quests. The result was a storytelling-centric platform developed without a traditional coding team — a structure that reflects the emerging blueprint behind many Gen Z–led apps. Jin previously founded Mediababy, which sold for $3.8 million, according to Reuters. That experience, he said, shaped his belief that platforms thrive when they prioritize user expression and fluid engagement over rigid structure. At Giggles, that belief translated into a product anchored in prompt-driven creativity, gamified feedback loops, and community-led interaction. As Wang noted, the company positions itself not just as an alternative to TikTok, but as a platform tailored for a generation it believes is increasingly disengaged from traditional social formats. And according to Hershoff, 'creators aren't limited to just posting photos and videos. They can vibe code a game, develop an app, create a whole virtual world and post it on Giggles.' Can AI-First Startups Scale? For all the momentum behind AI-native startups, there's a hard truth facing founders like Jin: culture can spark attention, but infrastructure sustains it. Platforms like Giggles, which thrive on virality and creator energy, eventually confront the same foundational question as any company with ambition. Can they scale securely, reliably, repeatedly and with technical discipline? At this stage, Giggles is less an anomaly and more a litmus test for how AI is transforming digital entrepreneurship. It's a living experiment in what happens when creativity, not technical expertise, drives product development. But to evolve from prompt-powered outfits into structured business ecosystems, these companies will need more than just vibes. They will need systems, safeguards and engineering depth. That's where founders must reckon with the limits of what vibe coding can achieve. Dohmke's warning at VivaTech isn't a dismissal of AI's potential, but a reminder of where the handoff happens. While AI can accelerate the zero-to-one moment, scaling responsibly requires the engineering rigor to turn a clever idea into a truly dependable platform. Jin and his team appear to recognize that. While Giggles was built without a traditional engineering stack, the company is now investing in its technical foundation. Wang, the platform's co-founder and lead developer, acknowledges that 'scaling creativity still requires coding discipline.' That doesn't diminish their AI-first origin; it refines it. The next test for Giggles — and others like it — isn't whether AI can launch a product. It's whether that product can become the infrastructure others depend on. A Hybrid Future For Founders What might the next decade yield? The trends point at a wave of hybrid founders: People with vivid creative vision and AI fluency who bring in veteran operators and engineers to solidify their product. That's the emerging blueprint: rapid prototyping, followed by structural discipline. Industry stalwart Reid Hoffman sees that promise, noting that 'bringing AI into your toolkit makes you enormously attractive.' But he and others caution that early AI advantage doesn't equal long-term lead. As AI-generated code gets better, so too must practices around testing, review, and security. In the end, the rise of vibe coding is real, but it's only half the story. Architecture, execution and human judgment are what matters most. While Giggles, Base44 and the rising 'AI-native' wave might be writing the prologue, the plot turns on whether these founders can turn vibe into real structure. 'In the end,' Jin told me, 'it's not just about who can build fast. It's about who can build something that lasts.'
Tom's Guide
42 minutes ago
- Tom's Guide
Google Pixel 10 Pro tipped for gimmicky feature they should have ditched years ago
We may not have long to wait until the Pixel 10 launch event on August 20, but Google has already released a first look teaser at one of the upcoming phones — seemingly the Pixel 10 Pro. For the most part this phone looks pretty much the same as the Pixel 9 Pro, and that's a problem for me. Not that I have a particular dislike of the Pixel 9 design, quite the opposite. But for the fact that the phone still seems to have a temperature sensor alongside the camera. And that's a feature that should have been scrapped by now. If only because it's a gimmick that has overstayed its welcome. The Pixel temperature sensor is a feature that could have been useful, had it appeared three years earlier than it did. The Pixel 5 was released towards the end of 2020, back before COVID-19 vaccines were available and the virus was still a significantly bigger threat than it is today. Those of you that remember that time will likely remember having your temperature taken at one place or another. In a store, at an event, arriving at work, you name it. At that point a smartphone with a built in temperature sensor, especially one approved for medical use on humans, could have been a very big deal. Unfortunately the Pixel temperature sensor arrived on the Pixel 8 Pro in 2023. It's almost as though Google saw how useful such a feature could have been, and started work on it for a future phone. It's just unfortunate that by the end of 2023, the threat of COVID-19 has dropped significantly. Vaccines were available, lockdowns had ended, and while it never really went away, a lot of people had stopped worrying about the disease by that point. To make matters worse, the feature didn't even have FDA approval when the phone was released — that didn't happen until December, two months after release. Had the temperature sensor come bundled in on the Pixel 6 Pro, or even the Pixel 7 Pro, it could have proven its worth a little more than it already has. But the Pixel 8 Pro was released far too late. By late 2023, the need for such a feature was long gone. I've been using a Pixel 9 Pro, which also has a temperature sensor on the back, for almost a year now and I've found little need for a temperature sensor. Aside from some testing, and comparing the sensor to a thermal camera add-on, I'm not sure I've ever even used it. Aside from using food, I just don't have any need to regularly check the temperature of people or things. Maybe food, but I sure as heck am not sticking my phone into a partially cooked meal to see how much more time it needs. While the Pixel 10 Pro is only the third time the temperature sensor has been included on a Google phone, I can't help but think it's overstayed its welcome. Maybe I'm just the wrong target audience for it, but I feel like anyone who desperately needs to measure temperatures would probably just buy a dedicated thermometer — especially if it was for use with humans. The way I see it, the temperature sensor feels like a waste of money and resources — and Google would be better off utilizing the effort elsewhere. Whether that's for adding new AI features, improving staples like camera quality and battery life, or with some new piece of hardware that has better potential for success. Considering we've seen multiple Pixel price hikes in the past few years, it's strange that Google hasn't tried to trim the fat and cut costs. The lower price tag was one of the key selling points of buying a Google phone, even if Pixels weren't nearly as affordable as the old Nexus lineup. There are plenty of other benefits, like the exclusive features and first access to Android updates, but we can't ignore the fact that the ever-increasing cost of Pixel phones makes them a lot less appealing. If Google can save a little bit of money, by scrapping a feature that it really doesn't need to keep pursuing, and pass that saving onto the customers, it would be of benefit to everyone. But that hasn't happened, and I suspect it won't happen until we get another significant redesign to the flagship Pixel hardware. Considering the Pixel 9 series was a major deviation from the previous 3 generations, I can't see that happening anytime soon. There is a reason why Google has kept the temperature sensor around on Pixel phones, even if it doesn't seem like a particularly logical choice. We just don't know what that reason is, and so far Google hasn't been quick to volunteer an answer. Still, I can't help but feel like the temperature sensor is the kind of feature that should have been scrapped already. Like the Pixel 4's Motion Sense gesture recognition feature, it should have been a one and done piece of hardware. Because it's just not the kind of thing anyone needs to have on their phone, especially now that we're not trying to dodge exposure to a deadly virus on a daily basis. But hey, I guess I'll just have to continue not using the temperature sensor and hope that Google realizes the Pixel 11 could probably go without. At the very least I'm happy to hear rumors that the Pixel 10 could finally offer Qi2 magnetic charging, under the name "PixelSnap."
Forbes
43 minutes ago
- Forbes
Myth Or Reality: Will AI Replace Computer Programmers?
Have computer programmers innovated themselves out of a job? That's the fear driving theories that AI will remove the need for humans who can write computer code. Today's most sophisticated large language models like GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet are just as fantastically efficient at coding as they are at drafting emails and essays in human languages. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently said he believes AI will soon be writing 90 percent of all code. And Amazon CEO and President Andy Jassy said his company will hire fewer software engineers thanks to AI. So does this mean that learning to program—since the start of the computer age, an accessible gateway to a lucrative career for many—is pointless now? Regardless of the capabilities of today's AI, is there any way that someone setting out to learn software development now can hope to be able to compete with the AI coders of five years in the future? With 30 percent of coders saying they believe that AI will replace them, there's fear and uncertainty in the air, but how does this affect the reality of the situation? Let's take a look: Why Are Programmers Worried They Will Be Replaced? Evidence certainly seems to be growing that generative AI tools can carry out many of the tasks associated with coding and programming. Commonly cited use cases include creating new code, optimizing existing code, detecting bugs, explaining code, maintaining documentation and detecting security vulnerabilities. Although quantitative research is limited at this point, one study found that programmers assisted by Microsoft's AI coding assistant, GitHub Copilot, have been able to complete tasks 55 percent faster than those without. It's frequently speculated that entry-level programming roles are the most likely to be affected because their work is more easily automated. Senior roles such as team leaders and lead engineers, requiring a broader skillset and the ability to deal with strategic challenges, may be less exposed. But there's still the question of where the next generation of human software development leadership will come from if there are no jobs for beginners! According to the Washington Post, computer programmer jobs have declined by almost 30% compared to the previous two years. It's important to note that this isn't reflected in the figures for software development as a whole, which has declined by only around 3%. Jobs with the title of "programmer", however, are more likely to be entry-level roles that can more easily be replaced by automation. This does point towards the possibility of major shifts in the labor landscape. But it also gives anyone who programs computers for a living useful clues about what they need to do to stay relevant. Evolving Roles The truth is that the role of the programmer, in line with just about every other professional role, will change. Routine, low-level tasks such as customizing boilerplate code and checking for coding errors will increasingly be done by machines. But that doesn't mean basic coding skills won't still be important. Even if humans are using AI to create code, it's critical that we can understand it and step in when it makes mistakes or does something dangerous. This shows that humans with coding skills will still be needed to meet the requirement of having a 'human-in-the-loop'. This is essential for safe and ethical AI, even if its use is restricted to very basic tasks. This means entry-level coding jobs don't vanish, but instead transition into roles where the ability to automate routine work and augment our skills with AI becomes the bigger factor in the success or failure of a newbie programmer. Alongside this, entirely new development roles will also emerge, including AI project management, specialists in connecting AI and legacy infrastructure, prompt engineers and model trainers. We're also seeing the emergence of entirely new methods of developing software, using generative AI prompts alone. Recently, this has been named "vibe coding" because of the perceived lack of stress and technical complexity in relation to traditional coding. In truth, these are really just new methodologies that require developers to focus on more strategic tasks like project management and program architecture, rather than the nuts and bolts of getting code to do what we want it to do. The term is sometimes used by traditional coders in a derogatory way to imply that those coding with AI are scared of getting their hands dirty with 'real' coding. However, the practice also serves as an indicator of how software development is likely to change, and what skills coders and engineers should be developing now if they want to remain relevant. A glimpse of one potential future is provided in this quote from Adjrej Karpathy, director of AI at Tesla: 'A large portion of programmers of tomorrow do not maintain complex software repositories, write intricate programs, or analyze their running times. They collect, clean, manipulate, label, analyze and visualize data that feed neural networks.' Myth Or Reality? Software development and programming jobs are not going to disappear, in the short term at least. But the role will change immeasurably, and there are firm clues in place as to the direction of that change. What's the key learning here? I'd say it's that the ability to learn new skills and continuously stay ahead of change is the one skill everyone involved in programming, software engineering and development needs to develop if they don't want to be left behind. Creativity, innovation and real-world problem-solving skills are vital to ensuring AI can be used to improve people's lives. While I believe emerging and future generations of AI technology will deliver wonders, humans will still be at the heart of the process. Partly this is down to the ethical responsibility to ensure there is always human oversight. But also because it will be some time (if ever) before AI has the strategy-focused, people-centric skills needed to replace programmers.
