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 2 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

▲

Arainach an hour 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/]

	▲	HybridStatAnim8 31 minutes 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.
	▲	Zak an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		GrapheneOS is obviously an Android distribution, but I suspect trademarks mean they have to be careful about how they describe it.