It is amazing how Volkswagen keeps messing up. I am currently in the market for a new car, an EV specifically. Volkswagen brands were at the top of my list for many reasons, among them the excellent driving assist implementation.

I got an offer from a dealer three weeks ago and was going to order the car, then the API for the community integration got turned off. I decided to hold back and see what comes from it. Now this, which ultimately - since I am a GrapheneOS user - makes me completely cancel my plans.

I really do not understand VWs thinking here. It would cost them little to nothing to continue not blocking the the inofficial API and not block GrapheneOS (or other non Play Protect androids) users. It would have no adverse effects on the average Joe, but it would gain a lot of support and enthusiasm from heavy users, differentiating from other brands. Not to mention the fact that it is the USERS data in the first place

• this_user

  today at 4:47 PM

  German companies, especially old school industrial ones like VW, have a very hard time understanding open platforms. The view everything through the lense of liability and compliance first. Their thinking is that if someone runs their app on a custom ROM and uses that to manipulate the app in any way, and that causes some extremely hypothetical damage, that they might be held liable for not having prevented this situation.

  Obviously, the chances of that are virtually zero. But they'd rather make their product worse than assume with any kind of risk, even if it is virtually zero. That is simply the way in which German enterprises operate.

  • anonymousiam

    today at 5:24 PM

    If they have concerns about the security of their app on some platform, they have the choice to either put "security" into the app, or to trust the platform vendor to provide the security. The correct solution is the first way. Deferring trust to the platform provider is the lazy way.

    If their APIs are done correctly, they shouldn't be afraid to expose them.

  • formerly_proven

    today at 5:11 PM

    If I had to guess it’s liability concerns around the app-based remote unlock and parking + R155 and CRA. A lot of european companies have moved to require attestation in their apps, likely spurred on by the CRA.

    • today at 5:13 PM

  • user3939382

    today at 5:02 PM

    VW didn’t seem too concerned with compliance when they were rigging their pollution tests.

    • zie

      today at 5:55 PM

      That was just engineers engineering their way into creating Electrify America :)

    • xenocratus

      today at 5:10 PM

      They'd have you know they actually cared a bit too much about said compliance itself.

      • CuriouslyC

        today at 5:17 PM

        *appearance of compliance

    • joe_mamba

      today at 6:00 PM

      Them cheating the tests WAS them ensuring THAT compliance.

    • this_user

      today at 5:11 PM

      I mean, the only reason they did it was to be able to comply with the requirements of the test.

      But the reality is that every once in a while you have a scandal like this or something like Wirecard, and it happens, because the culture is such that absolutely nobody thinks it possible. That includes officials and regulators whose first instinct will often be to come after the people trying to expose the scandal, as has happened in the case of Wirecard.

      • joe_mamba

        today at 6:01 PM

        >because the culture is such that absolutely nobody thinks it possible

        Only naive laymen or newcomers to Germany think it's not possible. German business leaders, lawyers and politicians know exactly how much corruption and scamming is going on in the business sector, and it's not a little.

        >first instinct will often be to come after the people trying to expose the scandal, as has happened in the case of Wirecard.

        That was purely malicious to try to protect Wirecard, not because the regulators couldn't possibly imagine corruption and law breaking exists, that was the story they used as cover for their corruption.

        Like you're a regulator and instead of looking at the evidence the economist showed you, you "use your instincts" to decide not to do your job and not look into Wirecard because you don't believe something bad can ever happen? Come on! All those regulators should have been fired and tried for corruption and/or conspiracy to crime.

  • neya

    today at 5:14 PM

    Yeah sure, the company behind Dieselgate and single handedly destroyed the diesel market is worried about compliance? Give me a break.

    • adrianN

      today at 5:26 PM

      VW is large enough that different parts of the company can have very different opinions.

• OsrsNeedsf2P

  today at 4:35 PM

  VW is obviously not thinking that any noticable portion of the userbase uses Graphene, and someone (somewhere) is going to get a promo by making VW infra adhere to "standards" or something

  • riedel

    today at 5:20 PM

    Actually we need to force our European governments to use services that do not depend on foreign services (ie. Google or Apple). Then I guess it will only then become obvious to them how crazy the situation has become.

    The company's have done their thing to ensure that the average guy wouldn't even try escaping their lock-in. So chances are becoming smaller and smaller to hope for a critical mass of users to complain.

  • echelon

    today at 4:44 PM

    I don't use Graphene, but now I'm out of the market for a VW.

    Vendor lock-in to Play services is ridiculous.

    A car is a big purchase, and ideally not something I discard after a few years. I'd like it to not treat me like a second-class citizen and renter who can't make decisions over how to extend the life of my purchase.

    • zamadatix

      today at 4:58 PM

      It's ridiculous, but are we only saying that because we're on HN or is it because the portion of the userbase who thinks it's actually a bad thing is the larger one?

      • tarxvf

        today at 5:45 PM

        Who cares if it's the larger one, so long as they are the correct one?

• oaiey

  today at 5:40 PM

  I think there was no specific thinking in that space at all. They went for attestation of the app for security reasons of the API and their testing only runs on normal android and iOS devices. Consequently, they realized later this and write a response pointing to their tested platforms.

  So understanding why they drop it is IMHO easy. Understanding why they use only attestation based API despite and forcing their third party ecosystem out is stupid. Companies do not understand open communities.

• bojan

  today at 4:45 PM

  Same here. I'll be in a market soon and I had my eyes on a VW i4 or a Škoda Enyaq, but this makes me seriously reconsider. I really wanted to support local industry and buy a European product this time, but they are making it seriously difficult (no, don't get me even started on Stellantis).

  • bogeholm

    today at 6:06 PM

    Mercedes has some interesting EV options, and they have some models at the moment that are not necessarily that expensive. Through the grapevine I overheard something about surplus production due to mandate to build a certain number of EVs.

    If you don’t want/need a new car, the used car market in Germany is pretty active with EQAs and EQBs.

  • joe_mamba

    today at 4:49 PM

    Go with Dacia, though their EVs seem to have very low range.

    • abyssin

      today at 4:57 PM

      2022 Dacia Sandero is a great car. Analog buttons, good build quality, well designed. And it’s cheap.

      • isoprophlex

        today at 5:32 PM

        Possibly the single ugliest recent car though

        • nickserv

          today at 6:03 PM

          And yet still has more personality than the latest Ferrari.

• gslepak

  today at 5:05 PM

  I'm kinda glad that it's VW blocking GrapheneOS users in a cynical way. When my parents got a VW Jetta they never stopped complaining about it and never bought one again. So it tracks that they'd also be the car manufacturer to block GrapheneOS and stomp on their user's privacy.

  It's an easy market to win at this point. The bar has been lowered so much. Already have a nice car? Just don't display utter disdain for your user's privacy and you get our $$.

• y-c-o-m-b

  today at 4:37 PM

  > Volkswagen brands were at the top of my list for many reasons

  You should definitely reevaluate how you constructed your list. VW has a history of being scummy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal) and their ICE cars are notorious for being unreliable compared to the Japanese car-makers. To be fair, EVs do change the equation a bit, but given their scandal plagued past, there's no way I would put them at the top of any list.

  • michalhosna

    today at 5:20 PM

    > their ICE cars are notorious for being unreliable compared to the Japanese car-makers.

    I always read this online, but my personal experience in EU doesn't match that at all in quite a sample of people and cards of last ~15 years. At least not for older cards. The reliability after 100k km seems to be somewhat similar.

    The repairability of VW-group stuff in 3rd party services is soo much better and cheaper. The WV-group is huge and many models across the brands share same parts and full engines. There exist non-OEM alternatives and people know how to fix those cars.

    I have never bought new car. But driving anything but VW got expensive fast.

    Toyota cars can have bespoke parts even between different parts of the year for the same model. Continuous improvement isn't really that cool for cars.

  • jstanley

    today at 4:57 PM

    The emissions scandal is completely different, because in that case they were illicitly making the car work better for its owner.

    • bogeholm

      today at 6:07 PM

      Unless, of course, said owner cared for the environment

  • formerly_proven

    today at 5:14 PM

    As opposed to the rest of the auto industry which has a stellar track record of adhering to emissions and fuel economy regulations /s

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_device

    • joe_mamba

      today at 5:59 PM

      They all cheated and everyone knew it. It was the only way diesels could be so economical yet so powerful.

This is sadly not even the full extent of it. What they did is, they locked their api entirely for anything that is not play protect certified. That means, all the cool stuff that was doable via community-driven projects is now dead in the water.

The "app" they provide is 60% advertisement, 30% features, and I unironically preferred using a Home Assistant connection instead of of it for everything. Even for automations like "when to preheat the car", since that was easier and more intuitive outside of their native function.

This also means, that charge control from the cars side is not possible to automate anymore.

Sure, one could take the position "but it was never officially promised", but for some people, including me, having the api (which is paid btw) was a selling point.

Yes, I registered specifically for this comment.

• subscribed

  today at 4:15 PM

  I feel you. From my side I try to complain / rate / review every time, even if it's a low effort action, to cost them time and in the case of the regulated companies, to slightly worsen their complaint stats.

  There's enough of users to start making a difference. Really, even a low effort action raising valid concerns (security theater, a lie, google's monopolistic position, anti-competitive, etc), keywords that will make their response more careful and potential complaint to the regulator more impactful.

  • helterskelter

    today at 4:31 PM

    Things like this can actually be a good way to nudge a company in the right direction sometimes. Nobody uses those internal review systems, and sometimes their stats are actually important. A handful of users might make up a really big chunk of the reviews.

    In a similar vein, I once met a woman who told me how she would enter every single one of those stupid contests that you'd see printed on cereal boxes and ice cream containers because literally five people enter into those things, so you're odds of winning are surprisingly high. Apparently she won a bunch of them, but her favorite was when got a week long vacation that included going on a fishing trip with Ben and Jerry of "Ben and Jerry's".

• z3c0

  today at 4:18 PM

  So "Play Protect" is doing all the damage to the third-party ecosystem that it'd seemed designed for.

  I've slowly but surely been moving away from any service provider of any type who does not allow me to use their service without their often Play Services-dependent app. Changing vehicles would be a lot harder though.

  • strcat

    today at 5:26 PM

    Developers have to go out of their way to implement triggering Play Integrity API checks in their app and then retrieve the results to check on their services. They're putting a lot of effort into banning anything not licensing Google Mobile Services. It's definitely not a security feature since it permits devices with no security updates for more than 8 years but not a far more secure OS than anything Google certifies. Google doesn't allow GrapheneOS to obtain certification and certification comes with highly anti-competitive rules which would be completely unacceptable. Their licensing system has been ruled illegal in South Korea and other countries should not only do the same but ban the Play Integrity API and other related anti-competitive features. These are not actual security features and that's an excuse for the actual purpose of enforcing their GMS licensing model including forcing including a bunch of Google apps with extremely privileged access and using their builds of many OS components shipped from the Play Store.

Driving a rental car in Germany almost makes me cheer for the ongoing bankruptcy of their auto industry. It really needs a full reset at this point. Sad thing is EU law mandates for a modem in the car as well as intrusive driving aids that actually make driving less safe by constantly driving your attention away from the road[1]. So there is no hope to get a minimally decent car in Europe in the near future, unless a wider reset also happens at the political and social level.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-S76WEl25k

• lisper

  today at 4:55 PM

  That is one of the best, most profound and prescient videos I have ever seen.

• techpression

  today at 4:32 PM

  Whoever came up with the idea that the car should beep loudly even close to the speed limit has clearly never driven a car. The best way to silence it is to constantly be over the speed limit or well below.

  • iroddis

    today at 5:01 PM

    Probably made worse by the fact that _every_ VW brand car I’ve driven has read about 10% high on the speedometer. I think I’m going 100 kph, but timing using the km markers on the highway show I’m going about 90.

    When I talked to the dealers, they said that the speedometers only have to be accurate +/- 10% according to the SAE specifications.

    After DieselGate I assumed that the high reading was to game the fuel consumption game.

    Never again, VW auto group…

    • jabroni_salad

      today at 5:53 PM

      I have a GTI and with cruise control on, the speedo and my phone's gps reads exactly the same speed.

    • storus

      today at 5:40 PM

      Just use the speed reported by your GPS. Most navigation apps show the GPS-based speed.

  • lnsru

    today at 4:38 PM

    This thing makes me crazy. But I can somehow ignore my Skoda’s whining. The other car was bought months before this regulation happened and I will keep it as long as I can.

I am not a lawyer, but this is clearly illegal under EU law.

As a EU citizen, please sign this petition https://www.change.org/p/eu-data-act-durchsetzen-autoherstel...

I don't know how large a group who will do this is - but if the UK bans VPNs I can see Graphene having a very large target on its back.

  - Buy Pixel, Get Graphene
  - Use FDroid, don't sign up for Google Play, download Tor browser
  - Censorship resistant access to the internet without handing over your ID.

The squeeze on the free internet happened so quick by the UK (well it took years of indifference and a failure to enshrine protections - but once they started moving the did so super fast)

Realistically we're speed running ID being tied to internet usage - create your escape hatch while you can!

• leoedin

  today at 4:02 PM

  There must be 10s of millions of x86 PCs with unlocked bioses in the UK. The issue won't be running an open device. The problem is software - what does someone running Linux do if the government mandates online services require proprietary attestation APIs?

  It's scary how quickly the banning is moving. The problem is what happens next. When they realise that banning things doesn't really work. The next logical step is severely limiting internet traffic.

  • lifty

    today at 5:39 PM

    The first wave will be to mandate ID verification for online services. Some people will then start using p2p services, so the next step is to ban devices that can run non-approved software. Probably having your own VPS running your own software will also not be allowed. And like that, all the avenues for escaping control will be closed… for your safety, of course.

  • torginus

    today at 5:50 PM

    I think a lot of them already do, considering you can do things like digitally sign legally binding contracts.

  • rjsw

    today at 4:21 PM

    Am currently trying to open a business bank account in the UK, several banks require running a proprietary ID validation app.

  • jasonvorhe

    today at 4:21 PM

    Don't use those services. You're not gonna miss most of the crap after a few weeks anyways. Everything else is consent.

  • altairprime

    today at 4:19 PM

    > what does someone running Linux do if the government mandates online services require proprietary attestation APIs?

    One dual-boots to a reputable Linux vendor’s signed/sealed OS image with secure boot enabled in BIOS, so that the attestations are valid; financially supports said vendor; contacts them quarterly with check-ins on the status of their lockdown+attestation roadmap and uses professional journalism approaches to highlight their (in/)action; and, contacts one’s relevant governing body to petition for the addition of that vendor’s signed/sealed product line to be added to the authorized signatures list by both government-sponsored apps and to the verification platforms of the competing vendors (in order to balance the necessities of attestations with an appropriate degree of anti-monopolistic protections for consumers).

    > It's scary how quickly the banning is moving. The problem is what happens next. When they realise that banning things doesn't really work

    This confidence that ‘attestation doesn’t really work’ is the same sort of confidence that lead the Linux user community to largely scoff at, and ignore, attestation’s threat from when it was ballistically launched three decades ago towards the future. Options are now very limited for stopping it, and largely reduced to ‘getting some Linux into the approval list’. Severe compromises in user freedom will be required for the signed+sealed distro images to receive government approvals.

    Imagine if Linux were an app on a video game console and you start to see the outcome: it’s a perfectly great working environment into which all of /usr/local and /opt and /home are writable, but the lockdown prevents you from modifying the OS in any way that could defeat the attestation protections. Apps you install into /opt can only access their own /opt/prefix, apps you install into /usr/local can access $HOME. The apps you install can choose to write session data (such as digital age verification certificates) to a system-protected /data store keyed first by the kernel’s signature, and second by the vendor signature the kernel reads from the app; with the understanding that an attestation latch-forward after an exploit patch will wipe that store, and that dual-booting to a different vendor will suspend access to sessions stored by that vendor.

    This is, to climb on my hobby horse for a moment, why I continue to believe that Valve will be the first Linux vendor to receive government attestation approval alongside Apple / Google / Microsoft have previously across the desktop and mobile spaces. I’d really prefer that to be Graphene, Ubuntu, and Valve — but Graphene’s customer base is hostile to this, Ubuntu doesn’t have any incentive to care, and of the Linux vendors out there, Valve has a decade-long head start on the need for a locked-down and attested platform for business reasons. All of the above falls out naturally from considering how to defend one app from another on Android, iOS, Steam Deck, and Xbox. So far as I can tell today, though, Linux intends to be left out in the cold on all this. Oh well.

    • doublerabbit

      today at 5:51 PM

      I would never ever trust Linux from a vendor. If it's not installed by myself, I refuse to use it.

      When you accept government gift in approval consider it tapped. At any point they can return to the vendor and go "install this". No? Okay bye to your certification.

      Call me paranoid.

      • altairprime

        today at 6:03 PM

        [delayed]

    • dmantis

      today at 5:22 PM

      >signed/sealed OS image

      This way we will just have unremovable age verification, spyware, online accounts to use the os, name another bs from other vendors. What's the point of Linux then? The moment big corps and the state can seal spyware into your computer, they'll happily do it.

      I'd rather have a separate burn device with whatever os for state services which lives in a faraday cage most of the time and have a proper OS I control on the main device than give somebody control over it.

      • altairprime

        today at 5:42 PM

        I’m with you in spirit, but the ship is sinking, man. Your arguments were already made in the 90s when the first puff of smoke from all this was on the horizon. Thirty years of chicken little later, I’ve moved past being upset about this and am trying instead to persuade the Linux community to step up before the window of opportunity closes on GP computing altogether. Do something, act, if you want a better future; or do nothing if you don’t. What actions do you suggest people take in support of your viewpoint?

• spogbiper

  today at 4:26 PM

  https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-organized-crim...

  “Every time we see a Google Pixel, we suspect it might belong to a drug dealer,” said a police official leading the anti-drug operation in Catalonia.."

  Seems like some countries/areas are already targeting the Pixel (really its because of GrapheneOS)

  • HybridStatAnim8

    today at 5:31 PM

    It is far more likely that it is due to scams and grifts that pretend to be GrapheneOS, associated with GrapheneOS, or based on GrapheneOS, rather than GrapheneOS itself. Criminals tend to be not that bright.

• RickS

  today at 4:51 PM

  I regret not signing up for Discord when they first introduced facial recognition and middle schoolers were trivially spoofing their ID checks with meme pics.

  There's really something to be said for greedily signing up for most things and trying to get grandfathered before the zipcuffs tighten.

  IRL, though, fuck this. Home depot added flock cams and broad facial recognition, grocery store installed turnstiles, haven't stepped foot in either since. I'm just dropping out of the IRL retail economy left and right.

• LightBug1

  today at 4:05 PM

  Who said the UK is going to ban VPN?

  Genuine question. That's news to me and I'm here.

  • domh

    today at 6:12 PM

    Apologies for the youtube shorts link, but Liz Kendall was on LBC yesterday talking about VPNs:

    https://youtube.com/shorts/WvHl3G6KojI

    I believe they're "doing research" into it, which basically means they don't understand how any of it works.

  • tentacleuno

    today at 4:20 PM

    The "Technology Secretary" is actively investigating it[0].

    [0]: https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/new-vpn-...

  • arbol

    today at 4:07 PM

    When they realise their social media ban for children doesn't work

  • subscribed

    today at 4:18 PM

    https://stateofsurveillance.org/articles/government/uk-lords...

    It mostly happened already and it's in motion.

  • ravenical

    today at 4:17 PM

    https://xcancel.com/BBCBreakfast/status/2066788360606138759

  • jasonvorhe

    today at 4:22 PM

    They said so. "Nothing is off the table" was the quote, iirc.

  • iAMkenough

    today at 4:09 PM

    Think of the children that will bypass all of the "protections" recently adopted by the UK.

    • gonzalohm

      today at 4:20 PM

      How would they even do that? A VPN is just a remote machine. Anything can be a VPN

      • tryauuum

        today at 4:59 PM

        Like in Russia

            - drop wireguard / OpenVPN packets crossing the country border
            - analyze https traffic to detect traffic patterns not matching https fully and block such connections

      • ifwinterco

        today at 4:40 PM

        And some including mullvad already accept payment in crypto, there will always be some dodgy VPN company in some dodgy jurisdiction that will take your BTC in exchange for an account.

        I don’t think that will stop them trying though

VW blocking third party to access their servers is one thing, the thing that I find shocking is that you need to access VW servers to obtain your charging data while this should be directly available locally from the car.

• bri3d

  today at 4:31 PM

  The historical data is aggregated in some "cloud" rather than in the car, but if you want to collect and aggregate the data locally, you can still, for now at least. Car Scanner Pro and ABRP (A Better Route Planner) are both really popular for EVs for this exact use case, and both support VW EVs; they read battery charge state / voltage / temperature and operating states (speed, consumption, etc) using both standard OBD and proprietary manufacturer diagnostic IDs over the OBD port and then redo the aggregation and math that VW are doing on their end.

Google Play has been a huge drag on innovation and security in the mobile ecosystem. I'm actually looking forward to the time when AI kills the mobile app ecosystem so that every phone manufacturer can bundle their own "vibe-code-your-own-app" system with their devices, and the Google Play monopoly is broken.

• miketery

  today at 3:52 PM

  I don't think that will happen. Sure for a minority of users the same as people running linux for their daily driver, and I definitely support it!

  It's possible that we get to a place where everyone cooks their own meal (vibe coded app), and only goes out to eat sometimes (official app store). Spreadsheets are the same, you can get a lot of milage, and most still buy and use closed source software.

  Reminds me of this: https://www.robinsloan.com/notes/home-cooked-app/

• bflesch

  today at 4:20 PM

  I see a future where it is easier for startups to create their own mobile devices than to deliver certain functionality through the Google and Apple platforms where your own data will be used against you and where their devices can record you 24/7 without any remediation to ensure privacy.

• doublerabbit

  today at 3:54 PM

  Let's rewind 15 years ago when everyone was jumping and praising mobile Eco-systems. Did no one ever see this happening or were most too gullible with Facebook hugs and pokes

  • wongarsu

    today at 4:07 PM

    My recollection of HN 15 years ago includes a lot of annoyance with apps that could have been a website and how these walled gardens harm our freedom

    • doublerabbit

      today at 4:47 PM

      Got my date wrong. What about twenty years ago?

      • applfanboysbgon

        today at 5:14 PM

        In 2006, before Android, the iPhone, or app store existed? Were you even alive 20 years ago?

  • applfanboysbgon

    today at 4:34 PM

    > everyone was jumping and praising mobile Eco-systems.

    Literally who?

    • mystraline

      today at 4:55 PM

      The app-devs were salivating on striking it rich on a garbage app.

      The rest of us groan when we hear "DOWNLOAD OUR APP" or grocery stores that want you to install their spyware coupon app.

      These days, nost apps are just data exflitrators, spyware portals, and surveillance pricing initiatives, wrapped up with a "FREE THINGY" wrapping.

    • today at 4:46 PM

I had a used 2016 VW Golf and it was a lemon. It would have an average of one serious problem a month. I finally gave up being a professional car maintainer and dumped it, taking a huge loss because it was effectively worthless on the car market despite only being 8 years old. Fun car to drive, but what's the point if it doesn't work reliably? I completely lost my trust for VW vehicles after that.

Not surprising to me at all that their software is a similar high quality experience, but in general I think it's weird that cars have to be connected to the Internet anyways and I doubt the competition is substantially better.

Isn't this for the same reason why you can't do banking on an unlocked bootloader phone?

There's no way to verify the integrity of the system, and any malicious app can just grab your banking credentials or enable criminals to unlock and drive away with your car.

I am in market for a Car within a year or two, and I promise it won't be one from Volkswagen, if a company supports OSS platforms in cars and is available in APAC I will buy from them even if it costs 2x for the same specs (preferably a Hybrid but EV works too I guess).

Happy voting with your wallet folks. See ya.

I want a law that requires publishing your API for apps like this as well as allowing users to crate their own frontend based on it. That would enable more privacy aware versions of these apps.

Side note. Has anyone else noticed an uptick in GrapheneOS posts lately or am I crazy?

• Viability1936

  today at 4:32 PM

  Probably because it's quickly becoming the only reasonable option on mobile

• HybridStatAnim8

  today at 5:35 PM

  GrapheneOS has an official partnership with a large OEM (Motorola), has near perfect app compatibility, is constantly improving upon user experience, and has been well known and regarded in the privsec community and by many trusted security experts. It appears to be gaining more mainstream awareness as a result.

  Oh, and Android 17 has been released so there is hype for that.

• qrobit

  today at 4:27 PM

  Sort of, there're more posts about graphene in the year 2026 & they get much more attention. Aggregated some data and plotted it with my agent: https://boop.icu/Pr.png

Easy fix --- block VW from your car ownership.

Lol not surprised by VW. Had a long fight with them because of this takata thing

It's not your car anymore, you're just renting someone else's hardware and access to their restricted platforms. Some recent cars even deny starting your car engine if the always on camera facing the driver thinks the driver isn't capable of driving "safely".

This is the WEF future your conspiracy uncle was telling you about during family gatherings. Well.

• lenkite

  today at 6:06 PM

  The conspiracy uncle was right after all.

    "You will own nothing and be happy" - WEF Prime Objective.

Modern cars are such enshittified garbage. I was in a modern Toyota recently and every time you start it, the screen shows a "Guest mode activated" that you need to explicitly dismiss. The only way to disable this is to install some stupid Toyota app which I would never install. Then you dismiss the popup and the home screen is "Experience Drive Connect" which is some stupid Toyota subscription which I would never subscribe to. What a piece of garbage. I'd probably just disconnect the whole screen entirely.

We need an opensource car OS, to prevent the car enshitification, but the automakers will never allow it.

I hate that cars are every day more and more crammed with software, when car manufacturers can't seem to be able to make half-working code in the first place (looking at you Nissan, who just can't even put the correct timestamp on your GPS data points…)

• techdmn

  today at 4:15 PM

  My car won't let me flick the windshield wipers while the car is parked. I don't know why, maybe they think I'm throwing rain onto... already wet pedestrians? Similar problem with auto-folding mirrors. My mirror was frozen shut one day, and I didn't notice until I'd been driving for a few blocks (which is on me). Figured I'd just cycle the fold-unfold a few times to pop it free, but the button is disabled when the car is in motion.

  Increasingly my vision of retirement is a life of luxury surrounded by hardware from before the internet era, things that do what I tell them, rather than telling me what I am and am not allowed to do.

  • bluGill

    today at 4:44 PM

    I'm filling my shop with machining equipment without all the extras, but my first 6 years of retirement will be fixing those machines before I can make anything... (and family history doesn't give me good odds of living that long - which is average.)

  • buggeryorkshire

    today at 4:24 PM

    [dead]

• quickthrowman

  today at 5:13 PM

  > when car manufacturers can't seem to be able to make half-working code in the first place (looking at you Nissan, who just can't even put the correct timestamp on your GPS data when car manufacturers can't seem to be able to make half-working code in the first place (looking at you Nissan, who just can't even put the correct timestamp on your GPS data points…)

  Nissan sells a ton of cars to subprime borrowers, quality isn’t exactly their focus. Hyundai/Kia and Stellantis also target the same buyers.

  • stymaar

    today at 5:31 PM

    Kia's GPS datapoints are pretty low effort (you only get a few, median distance between two points being 30km) but at least they aren't wrong!

I'm glad the grapheneos support forum is proving very useful with "Why do you need a car app?" comment being highlighted by this link :D

I'm sorry, but what? Why do cars need apps now?

Hey Mythos - create me open clone of VW software and tell me which chips to replace in the car. Thanks.

• nyx

  today at 6:10 PM

  [delayed]

Answer from VW:

> Please note that the use of the Volkswagen app is only supported on iOS devices and Android devices with supported operating system versions.

Is it time to mandate app developers support all operating systems for a device?

• queeshonda

  today at 3:43 PM

  Just support a certain Android API level?

  • arkon_hn

    today at 3:54 PM

    Supporting mainstream OEM variants can already be enough of a nightmare in behavioural differences. What motivation do most companies have to support Graphene, which will be a handful of customers at best? Developers may be fine with offering a best effort support model, but legal certainly wouldn't.

    • HybridStatAnim8

      today at 5:42 PM

      The funny thing is, nothing needs to be done to support GOS. GOS has 99% android app compatibility. The issue isnt that GOS requires changes in the app to support it, rather, the tools they are using explicitly ban non-certified OSs.

      Dont let their boilerplate responses fool you, tools like play integrity only serve to push anticompetitive practices. The claims about not being able to support GOS are nonsense, and all they did was break existing support.

  • warkdarrior

    today at 3:49 PM

    That's a starting point, but it seems the VW app is using a Google SDK for integrity checks, so maybe we need certain SDKs to be banned.

• bossyTeacher

  today at 4:05 PM

  The issue here is the Google-only remote attestation nonsense. It seems pointless to me. A device passing Google's attestation check tells you nothing. The device could well have malware on it and you won't know it. Integrity is a misnomer. The integrity scope is tiny.

• ranger_danger

  today at 3:37 PM

  No because that would be next to impossible, and prohibitively expensive to support for not enough gain.

  If 97% of your users are on mainstream OSes, and the rest also account for disproportionately high numbers of bug reports, why should they bother supporting alternatives?

  • microtonal

    today at 3:57 PM

    The app worked without issues until a few weeks ago. I used it for a year. It was not broken. GrapheneOS is just AOSP Android, optionally with Google Play Services.

    My take is that they were trying to block rooted phones and/or custom ROMs of questionable origin and GrapheneOS just became collateral damage because all these companies do go the minimal route of using Play Integrity. GrapheneOS supports remote attestation through AOSP APIs, in fact, they have a page about it.

    I think it's worth letting this be heard. GrapheneOS has > 400,000 users and is rapidly growing. Breaking things is not going to affect 5 people anymore, but thousands, ten thousands or hundreds of thousands, depending on what the app is.

    • Zak

      today at 5:15 PM

      > My take is that they were trying to block rooted phones and/or custom ROMs of questionable origin

      There are only bad reasons for them to do that. End users don't get compromised that way in reality, but it does mean they might convince the app to do something that's bad for profits.

  • strcat

    today at 5:18 PM

    They don't need to do anything to support GrapheneOS. They only need to stop actively going out of the way to block it and any other alternative OS via the Play Integrity API. They put significant effort into blocking anything other than iOS or a Google Mobile Services Android stock OS certified by Google. They're not only blocking a non-stock AOSP-based operating system but rather anything other than iOS or a Google Mobile Services Android device certified by Google.

  • HybridStatAnim8

    today at 5:50 PM

    GrapheneOS maintains 99% android app compatibility. It does not require any additional funding or expenses to support GrapheneOS, and is actually more expensive to add these anticompetitive tools responsible for banning GrapheneOS.

    GrapheneOS is also not responsible for bugs in this app. Any bug reports coming from GOS are likely to be from the hardening toggles, which uncover bugs in the app. This is the apps fault, and these bugs still exist on other OSs. It should be resolved for the benefit of all users.

  • mschild

    today at 3:45 PM

    Its not a different os though. Its still android. VW seems to just have turned on integrity checks which constantly cause issues for non-google androids. Plenty of banks do the same.

  • ryandrake

    today at 4:05 PM

    > expensive to support

    "Support" is such an overloaded and vague word in the software industry. What does it mean for a company to "support" an app/os configuration?

    1. They deliberately target that app/os configuration, QA tests it, and answer customer support requests about it.

    2. They target the configuration, QA tests it, but it's offered without customer support.

    3. They target the configuration, but only release an untested build, use at your own risk.

    4. They don't target the configuration at all, but the builds they do release happen to work on the configuration, totally unacknowledged by the company.

    5. They don't target the configuration, and deliberately sabotage their application such that un-targeted configurations are actively blocked. Only adversarial users who hack the software are able to use it.

    Too many companies say: "We can't do 1 because we don't 'support' it, therefore we must do 5!"

    • Zak

      today at 5:22 PM

      Proton is one of the best examples of this phenomenon. Almost all Windows games work on Linux via Proton. Sometimes they even run better than they do on Windows.

      About the only time it doesn't work is when the game uses an anticheat system that intentionally blocks Linux. I can even see where the game devs are coming from when it comes to competitive games; cheating ruins the game for other players, and there's no way to prevent certain kinds of cheating without trusting the client to a degree.

      I can't see any reasonable and user-respecting place VW could be coming from intentionally blocking access from open systems.

  • fsflover

    today at 4:24 PM

    > If 97% of your users are on mainstream OSes, and the rest also account for disproportionately high numbers of bug reports, why should they bother supporting alternatives?

    Because of those bug reports, very few may be specific to the non-mainstream OS? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28978086

• Arainach

  today at 3:41 PM

  No. You're not required to use the app. You're not even entitled to use the app. If you want to use the app, you have to play by their rules. Plenty of device manufacturers have chosen to only offer iOS apps. No one talked about mandating that apps were available on competing platforms.

  If you choose to use something like GrapheneOS, you are signing up for the fact that almost no one will test on your platform and plenty of things will be broken.

  • HybridStatAnim8

    today at 5:58 PM

    The basis of your argument, that users want these developers to support another platform, does not make sense, because GrapheneOS does not require apps add explicit support for it. GrapheneOS has 99% android app compatibility.

    The issue is not that this application isnt tested on GOS, its that an anticompetitive, illegal tool is being used to ban non-certified OSs when these apps would work perfectly otherwise.

  • microtonal

    today at 3:54 PM

    The app worked until a few weeks ago. GrapheneOS does not miss any functionality (nor security) for the app to work. The only change is that they started blocking non-GMS Android through the thoroughly anti-competitive Play Integrity.

    Hypothetically, if GrapheneOS wanted to become a certified Android, it would probably not be blocked on technical reasons, only that becoming certified (last time a contract was leaked) requires running privileged Google Play Services (which is less secure) and pre-installing a bunch of Google apps that should not be uninstallable.

    How is that not anti-competitive?

  • watermelon0

    today at 3:52 PM

    The issue here is not that they didn't test on alternative distributions of Android, the issue is that they went out of their way to prevent anything but the officially blessed distributions.

    • Arainach

      today at 4:02 PM

      As is their right. There's nothing that says everything has to be open to everyone. There are other car companies.

      This site talks at length about running businesses, identifying your target market and focusing hard on them. The same thing applies to other aspects of software.

      If I ran a cross-platform app (built on Electron or whatever) and a certain platform made up 0.1% of my users but 20% of my customer support team's time, I'd stop supporting that platform. It's literally not worth the effort. And I wouldn't just let it rot (that would keep the customer support issues going), I'd block it.

      • moooo99

        today at 4:30 PM

        Except for the fact that the car is sold as is with the features advertised (i.e. working with an Android app with no additional qualifiers as to which kind of android) AND that users are paying for these connective services

        • Arainach

          today at 5:14 PM

          Graphene is not a kind of Android. It doesn't even advertise itself as such:

          > GrapheneOS is a privacy and security focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility [https://grapheneos.org/]

          • HybridStatAnim8

            today at 6:01 PM

            GrapheneOS is based on the Android Open Source Project and retains near perfect android app compatibility. It cannot call itself android for legal reasons, but the legal definition does not affect its app compatibility.

            Tools such as play integrity are illegal. Using anticompetitive and monopolistic tools is not the right of application developers.

          • Zak

            today at 5:42 PM

            GrapheneOS is obviously an Android distribution, but I suspect trademarks mean they have to be careful about how they describe it.

  • midasz

    today at 3:45 PM

    Here it is, the true hacker mentality.

    • esikich

      today at 5:20 PM

      Sir, this is a VC bro website.

    • DANmode

      today at 3:51 PM

      Understanding how those around you operate makes you no less of a hacker.

      It can even make you a great/better one…

      • _factor

        today at 4:10 PM

        They don’t just understand, they basically promote it.

        • DANmode

          today at 4:16 PM

          It felt more resigned than promotional to me; but yes, normalization is a fine line!

  • tedajax

    today at 3:51 PM

    Increasingly these kinds of apps are a requirement for a lot of features so ...

  • warkdarrior

    today at 3:45 PM

    Sure the app is not required, though one loses on all of the remote-control functionality (remote start, remote climate control, etc.).

    Maybe then app developers should be mandated to open fully their server-side protocols, so people can create apps for platforms that are not supported by default. No more undocumented APIs, anybody can get an API key, no API serving limits!

    • microtonal

      today at 3:51 PM

      Unfortunately, Volkswagen has an API, but made it much harder to use it since a few weeks ago:

      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48319509

  • queeshonda

    today at 3:42 PM

    "tEsT yOuR PlatTfORM"

    Fuck that.

[dead]

[dead]

The solution is not to try to shame or force Volkswagen to support GrapheneOS, the solution is to (legally) force them to allow the car to run a custom CarOS, for which the community can write their own app

• Arainach

  today at 3:43 PM

  That's a non-starter in most countries. Since the car software is tied into a number of important safety features and regulated controls, custom operating systems will never be supported.

  There are already massive problems with people miswiring head units to play videos while driving and updating their ECU to spew pollution into the air. You're not going to convince any significant number of people that it's a good idea to allow arbitrary code to run and control most of the other systems too.

  • dylan604

    today at 4:24 PM

    > Since the car software is tied into a number of important safety features and regulated controls, custom operating systems will never be supported.

    Then that's a poor design that should go the way of the dodo. Someone hacking the entertainment system should not be able to take over control of the engine. The entertainment system on planes do not allow one to hack into the autopilot. There should be no need for a firewall, they should have no shared wires between them.

    • Arainach

      today at 5:07 PM

      "Safety critical" isn't just the drivetrain. I don't work in automotive and won't pretend to understand all the rules, but off the top of my head, some things that my car uses the head unit for:

      * Backup Camera

      * Turning traction control on/off

      * Turning auto hold (maintaining the brake pedal while stopped) on/off

      * Window defrosting

      Many cars are even more integrated - are there any physical buttons inside a Tesla or is it all through the touchscreen?

      • dylan604

        today at 5:08 PM

        > Many cars are even more integrated - are there any physical buttons inside a Tesla or is it all through the touchscreen?

        If you're going to use the worst example as the comparison, then we'll get no where fast.

  • dada216

    today at 3:49 PM

    Those two set of systems are separate and very distinct.

    • Arainach

      today at 3:55 PM

      They're not. Use any car's heads up display and you can configure an enormous number of things. Even if there was somehow a pure separation, things such as "playing video while the car is moving" are regulated in many jurisdictions and would land firmly in the "UI" layer.

      • dylan604

        today at 4:25 PM

        You can detect the car is in motion or not without talking to the engine computer. Just like my phone can tell I'm in motion without connecting to the car at all. You're trying to justify a bad design with bad reasoning

        • mohamedkoubaa

          today at 4:39 PM

          People watch videos on their phone while drive and will continue to do so no matter what infotainment OSes allow or don't allow.

          • Arainach

            today at 5:08 PM

            "Some people break the law" is not a reason to not have laws. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

        • Arainach

          today at 5:07 PM

          Not with the necessary precision. GPS doesn't work in tunnels or parking garages and can be wildly inaccurate in city centers with skyscrapers blocking line of sight, for instance.

          • ssl-3

            today at 5:25 PM

            The built-in, offline mapping in my Honda uses a whole host of local-only sensors to handle these situations where GPS is intermittent. It works rather well at figuring out where the car is on the map, and when it deviates from the prescribed route.

            It works in tunnels. It works in cities with tall buildings. It works on Lower Wacker Drive in Chicago.

            Is there some technological limitation that precludes using this data to determine whether or not a movie can be played?

            (It's not like it's new tech. It's decades-old. Honda started using it over 20 years ago.)

    • juliangmp

      today at 3:57 PM

      You'd hope so but I fear that many safety critical aspects run on the same system as the infotainment system... And that's a perfect excuse for manufacturers to keep these things completely closed

  • binary132

    today at 3:54 PM

    “Users shouldn’t be same to control their own engines actually” hmm well ok then

    • Arainach

      today at 3:57 PM

      One person's "controlling their own engines" is another "spewing nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants into the air, giving cancer to neighbors and destroying the atmosphere". We tried the "don't regulate" path and it ended in a multitude of disasters.

      • mohamedkoubaa

        today at 4:43 PM

        You can regulate emissions without preventing custom tunes

        • Arainach

          today at 5:08 PM

          In practice, no, you can't. Certainly not without enormous costs such as mandatory regular vehicle inspections.

    • subscribed

      today at 4:46 PM

      May I introduce you to the "rolling coal" morons?

      • ssl-3

        today at 5:09 PM

        No need. I've seen them.

        In the States, for example: Every state I've looked at has laws that make it illegal to roll coal.

        And at least in my own state (Ohio), it's a primary offense. A person can be pulled over and ticketed for this even if they're doing everything else by the book. It's super easy to spot.

        It seems that it persists not because of a lack of laws, but because of a lack of enforcement.

        • subscribed

          today at 6:01 PM

          IMO they exist in spite of the laws (and more broadly "woke" science) and I'd expect much more of them if they became legalised.

      • binary132

        today at 5:01 PM

        do you really think there’s no way to prevent or penalize that behavior without preventing the user from owning and operating their own engine?

        also, what scale of harm do you think exists from those people?

        do you really believe that control of one’s own engine should be removed from all vehicle owners if a few people misuse it?

        do you understand that vehicle manufacturers use their proprietary systems that control the vehicle to exploit customers?

        • Arainach

          today at 5:13 PM

          > also, what scale of harm do you think exists from those people?

          Serious health complications, particularly to cyclists and pedestrians. Significant pollution surges:

          > According to government estimates, the practice can increase nitrogen oxide emissions as much as 310 times, non-methane hydrocarbons 1,400 times, and carbon monoxide 120 times. [https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/rolling-coal-donal...]

          > AED estimates that the emissions controls have been removed from more than 550,000 diesel pickup trucks in the last decade. As a result ofthis tampering, more than 570,000 tons of excess oxides of nitrogen(NOx) and 5,000 tons of particulate matter (PM) will be emitted by these tampered trucks over the lifetime of the vehicles. [https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/epa-on-tampered-diese...]

• bdamm

  today at 3:47 PM

  Could it be a right-to-repair issue? That seems to be the only legal wrench available for forcing automakers to open up access to anything.

• ddalex

  today at 3:43 PM

  Why should they ?! Do you also want to force them to design their cars so the engine is easily replaceable by a Custom Engine OS so that the community can build their own engines ?!?

  • callc

    today at 3:54 PM

    Because laws are (mostly) a reflection of what society wants.

    People are growingly concerned with both the car manu and Apple/Google control over their car and related extra software goodies.

    Laws are really needed when businesses don’t play nicely. I don’t know the legal specifics, but I’m sure glad I don’t need to buy $1000’s of specialty tools to maintain my vehicle, and sure glad that replacement parts are readily available (and will be for decades).

    Just image how much worse society would be if car manus did the same thing as Apple and had ID-paired parts. Sorry! Your AC doesn’t work anymore, please install a genuine Honda oil filter at your nearest Authorized Honda Shop, available for a minimum of $500.

    • ddalex

      today at 6:09 PM

      > People are growingly concerned with both the car manu and Apple/Google control over their car and related extra software goodies.

      10 out of random 10 drivers out there don't care about the software running in the car.

      > Laws are really needed when businesses don’t play nicely. I don’t know the legal specifics, but I’m sure glad I don’t need to buy $1000’s of specialty tools to maintain my vehicle, and sure glad that replacement parts are readily available (and will be for decades).

      You drive a self-maintained car. Nothing wrong with that, but I would guess 95 out of 100 drivers on the road don't care about the car at all - they just want reliable transportation from A to B and perhaps some confort.

      > Just image how much worse society would be if car manus did the same thing as Apple and had ID-paired parts. Sorry! Your AC doesn’t work anymore, please install a genuine Honda oil filter at your nearest Authorized Honda Shop, available for a minimum of $500.

      I don't have to imagine that al all, all premium car manufactures digitally id their components and will not accept 3rd party replacements.

  • DANmode

    today at 3:48 PM

    Next thing you know these dirtbags are going to want to choose what wheels and tires to put on these things. The nerve!

    (Yes, repairability and standardization are encouraged where feasible.)

    • ddalex

      today at 6:04 PM

      I would guess there are a couple of orders of magnitude difference between the complexity of interfaces comparing the head unit with wheels and tires.

      Like, the head unit is in control of all that happens on the slow bus of the car, and needs to pass independent safety certifications for a complex system.

• bflesch

  today at 4:22 PM

  That's unacceptable, because intelligence needs a way to steer your car into oncoming traffic if required to do so due to confidential national security reasons.