Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

The most useful point that emerged is that this looks less like a GrapheneOS problem than a general pattern: once a company ties physical product features to a phone app, the phone platform owner gains veto power over who gets to use those features. That is why much of the anger landed on Google Play Integrity as much as on Volkswagen. Commenters familiar with GrapheneOS stressed that the OS does not need special app support and keeps strong compatibility with Android. In their view, the block is deliberate policy, not technical necessity. That fed a broader anti-attestation mood. People see remote attestation as a tool that gets sold as security but is increasingly used to enforce approved software stacks, kill third-party ecosystems, and make products less owner-controlled over time. A second thread pushed the car angle further. Many argued the absurd part is not merely that Volkswagen blocked one mobile OS. It is that owners need Volkswagen servers and a vendor app at all for basic data and remote functions. Some noted that EV telemetry can still be read locally through OBD tools such as Car Scanner Pro and ABRP, which undercuts the idea that everything must run through the cloud. Others connected this to a wider trend in cars: features are bundled into brittle software, tied to subscriptions, and updated in ways that outlive neither the car nor the customer’s preferences. That is why several people said this changed purchase decisions. The lockout became a concrete signal that the buyer is not really in control of the product. The mood was overwhelmingly hostile to Volkswagen, but the deeper target was the combination of carmaker lock-in, Google attestation, and app-mediated ownership. The practical conclusion was clear. Buyers who care about privacy, interoperability, or right-to-repair now have to evaluate cars the way they evaluate closed software platforms, because that is what these cars have become.