I don't think you can put that Genie back in the bottle bear. So, if nothing else, I am glad they plan to introduce an open architecture that is capable of receiving constant updates, allowing the system to evolve as new applications become available. That's a sort of tip-of-the-hat to your concern about "sustainability."
It has nothing to do with sustainability or open architecture. It has to do with very expensive, electronic parts that are required to bring a car back up to spec once it is in the 15-20 year old range. Things like computer controlled shocks, combination nav/radio/ice systems. Computer control interfaces for systems that only require simple switches [the window lift buttons]. Gizmos for the sake of gizmos is just plain dumb and all of us are paying for it with cars that depreciate like a rock and cannot be restored for future long term use.
As an example, I can take a absolute crap W126 S Class 1988-1991, and with $40K have a new car that is built like a tank and will last 300K more miles, with new seats, carpet, paint, motor, tranny, suspension, a/c, etc. If I tried to do that with a worn out W220 S Class 2000-2004 it would cost me $120,000 in parts, mainly electronics and control pieces [yes, I have run the numbers]. And that W220 would still have a shelf life of only 150K max befire you had to start again.
So that Genie might be out of the bottle but someone needs to start stuffing his fat ass back in if we are going to build ecologically friendly, sustainable vehicles. KISS in systems design SHOULD be absolute Requirement1, not LightBrites.