Sorry for re-opening this question, but really I am thinking to be too idiot, in this point, at least. I solved in empirical way my question, but I decided to talk about this (mainly to understand whether I am so obsolete or not). Forgive me, my situation is that I want, for example, to give the app to a friend for testing. He has not B4a or B4Abridge, of course. First I want to test on a device what he has to do for installing the apk. So, in B4A, I set the compilation choice to "release". I have no device connected , or better, a device is connected to USB, but not to B4A with B4Abridge. Among the project options I don't find any "pure compile". If I compile without signing I don't find any apk, but just a temp.ap_. (BTW, if I rename it with apk extension and I copy to the device and install it, the device Os refuses to install it. (Ok, it is the "signature")). The only empirical way I found to solve my issue, is to execute a "compile and run", letting the Ide to give error because nothing connected. Then I find the apk, in the folder specified in previous discussion, and I can happily copy it to the device in one of its accessible folders, for example the "download" one. On the device, I have installed a file manager allowing to display the apk and, touching it, it is automatically installed. Apart the details on the device operations, my question is "What am I missing to be unable to obtain the apk with a "pure" compilation option?". Why shall i necessarily "compile and run"? Moreover, what the apk I did in this way is?. I mean: which are the drawbacks of distributing it in this way? Clearly it is freely distributable, but this is not the concern, in my case, for example. Thanks to anybody in advance.