this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
547 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
85695 readers
3875 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
All of this leads back to an old rhetorical question I've often asked. Why the fuck isn't the whole entertainment system and car connection just a standard touchscreen and communication protocol?
The fact that I need these proprietary patent-gated apps to use parts of my car, instead of just a driver that could work on any device with the right port, is overtly user-hostile.
Because many customers expect a seamless experience with zero tinkering
No, the lock in is not needed for seamless behavior. The lock-in is to secure various revenue opportunities.
For example, if I connect a displayport cable to a displayport connection, poof, display happens. There's no 'tinkering', there's no "trying to match vendors", it just works.
Similarly, here folks sorted out the protocols in use, and none of the 'seamless' users were impacted. VW went out of their way to break them not to ensure a seamless experience, but because they wanted to paywall capability in a reliable way.
One could easily imagine schemes that didn't require the lock-in, but would not assure an enduring revenue opportunity.