upvote

points

by watermelon03 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Arainach3 hours ago|
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby moooo993 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
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
reply
upvoteby Arainach2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
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/]

reply
upvoteby HybridStatAnim81 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby Arainach42 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
The legal definition matters a lot if someone is trying to argue that VW advertising Android features is supposed to include GrapheneOS

> Using anticompetitive and monopolistic tools is not the right of application developers.

Please talk to an actual lawyer before making legal claims, because to be blunt it's very clear you don't know what many of those terms mean in a legal context. VW is not a "monopoly". They have no obligation to allow the use of their software on platforms they don't want.

reply
upvoteby HybridStatAnim811 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
The legal definition of the OS does not matter at all when considering the difference between failing to support something, and using a tool that explicitly stops something from working that otherwise works without issue. Play integrity is a tool which does not base any of its certification decisions in privacy or security, rather leverages it for anticompetitive reasons. This is known and trivially verifiable.

I do know what these terms mean in a legal context. I am claiming that play integrity is an anticompetitive and monopolistic tool, of which VW decided to use. I am not claiming VW is a monopoly. What you are claiming is their right to do, is not their right at all, and is illegal.

reply
upvoteby Zak1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
GrapheneOS is obviously an Android distribution, but I suspect trademarks mean they have to be careful about how they describe it.
reply