Unfortunately, the current e-Golf is just a regular Golf poorly converted to electric, way too expensive and with not enough range.
That's going to be nearly impossible to avoid in the future. I do some software work for one automaker and every 2019+ model has a firewall on the data bus. It's not because they want to lock you out of repairing your car, it's because the pen testing and Defcon hacking has been accelerating over the past few years and they don't want headlines that say their cars can be hacked. That's bad for sales. They'll lose sales from guys like you too of course -- your concern is certainly valid, but more people are concerned about the security of their car than being able to repair it themselves.
I read stories that Tesla disabled cars that have been repaired too much, and that you have to have them certified and unlocked again. They always claim security and user experience grounds, but of course the main motive is maximizing profit. Apple does this, John Deere does this, basically every company who can afford to does this.
I wish they would be honest enough to say first, yup, we do this so we can charge more money for repairs and spare parts. Second, we have no other choice because our competitors do this too and we have to maximize profit. And then I hope third we get strong right to repair laws as a result. I heard in the US the situation for cars is actually not too bad as the manufacturer cannot void your warranty for installing third party parts, but there is always room for improvement.
I don't need the ability to "tinker" with my car. But in the end, I buy it, and I want it to be 100% "loyal" to me and not to the manufacturer - like a stupid hammer, or a bicycle. That should be a legal principle IMO.
That is ideal, but inevitably I think there has to be a bit of a give and take there because the manufacturer is likely the most trustworthy party to handle the security of their vehicles (they have the most to lose).
For example, it's very difficult to make new keys for modern cars. Most manufacturers require that you go through them, and in fact a very secure department within the company, to get a "keycode" to make new keys. I think most people would agree that is a reasonable security benefit because it makes it almost impossible for a thief to make a new key even though it adds some extra hoops for the legit owner when they want a new key.
But Chrysler, for example, allows you to buy a new keyfob from anywhere you want, even repurpose an old one and program it yourself if you have two existing keyfobs for your car (that way a valet or service center with only one keyfob can't do it, only the owner with both keyfobs can do it).
Tesla was the first to encrypt their vehicle firmware and I believe they had to do this in order to do over the air updates, and I think that was also a necessity given the way they chose to do service operations (which also made sense since their goal was to have very few moving parts and therefore reduce the need for service center visits altogether).
I think eventually the head unit will be powerful and secure enough that they will be able to initiate many of these secure "repairs" from there. But, that will require that unit to be very locked down, likely to the same level that some of Apple's devices are (you can't self-swap the secure enclave in iPhones or macbooks since that is what manages security for those devices). The car's head unit would become the "secure enclave" for the car. Right now, the car is more of a distributed system, with no particular ECU being responsible for others... which is why you need an OEM tool to reprogram them.
I hope cars become more modular at the same time. Electric cars should last a lot longer and making it easier to swap key components, like Tesla is doing with their main AI computer, with faster better units will be great... especially if the head unit becomes the hub for the rest of the car, it would be nice to upgrade those when new advancements warrant it.
Personally, I don't like the term range anxiety, it sounds like a fighting term from the gas car industry and also doesn't take people's worries seriously. My problem is completely different: If there was no Model S, I would be totally happy with an e-car with 140 miles range. But if I can get another car for a similar price with twice the range, I'm going to buy that instead.
It shows to me that VW (like other established brands) is not doing the technically possible, but half-hartedly quickly making an electric car, just so they also have one. The e-Golf AFAIK uses the same platform as most VW (and Skoda etc.) cars, where they crammed the batteries in there where there was space. Teslas are designed from ground up for electric, and the whole car underbody is basically a battery.
Saying things like "it shows to me that VW is not doing the technically possible" without ANY informed opinion is embarrassing.
edit: also, do you own any kind of electric car or are you just pontificating? Range anxiety is a real thing - literally the stress of "do I have enough electricity to get home"
VW's e-golf is advertised as having a 140 mile range. It's noticeably lower than Tesla's advertised range of 200 mile but as it's a city car designed for the european market I'm not sure it's relevant. I mean, in some european countries that's more than enough to drive through the entire nation.
I don't get it, why everybody start to build car like a smartphone now days?