Is this part of your stand up routine?
If you agreed on 11kW replacement, I doubt they'd revisit it. I guess the lesson here is to make sure to negotiate acceptable (to you) compensation before letting Porsche substitute a part with 50% of original performance spec in a repair.
So what you're saying is that Porsche lacks the skill to develop a resilient, lasting OBC. Since they can only design and produce ones which continue to die, they chose to simplify the production and supply chain by producing only one type. Did I get that right?
My interpretation would be something like this although have no idea if it was an intention or not. Unfortunately planned obsolescence is not new for the auto industry.
I wonder. Has Porsche lost their engineering prowess, or have they never had it in the first place, owing their success to the fact that car designs haven't changed for decades, so after decades of making the same thing with minor incremental tweaks they managed to get it to decent quality?
Interesting assumption, we may will never know.
Almost all of that generation of engineers now retired. They lived for the company full hart. Newer generations living for money, company is not a priority anymore. Not to mention the bests are bought out by Chinese automakers easily. This generation is much more flexible where to live.
Funny, I had a conversation with a friend not long ago how today's software engineers are so much more replaceable by AI than ones from the 80's or 90's. Back then, programming was an art, and most software engineers were geeks who lived and breathed software. Today most software engineers do this as a job, not a passion. They just apply patterns, at best reusing some existing code and applying some glue software to make it work - something AI is getting really good at! The first microcomputer I ever played with had 16KB or RAM (ZX Spectrum), and it had very playable games, and built-in BASIC interpreter. Ask today's engineers to design a system that will have an OS and games with 16KB of RAM and they will tell you it's impossible (as probably will AI).
Well, i am active in that world and i can confidently tell you that this only applies to entry level and middle-management/bloat/c-level. Actual engineers are more important then ever, the current phase just removes a lot of those who have been paid lots but are not actually good at what they are doing. AI generated code is sloppy, in most cases extremely error prone, unreliable and almost unmaintainable. The current llm based generative AI is fundamentally only simulating reason, it's doing a good job at that but it at the core it has no real understanding of anything.
While I agree, unfortunately more and more "developers" generate just as sloppy code, copy pasting code they find on the web without understanding it, or sucking in tons of open source libraries just to use one function they could have written themselves, as long as it works on their bench for the sunny day scenario (very few if any corner cases are tested). Add AI to the mix, and it's worse, because those need to understand even less of the code from AI because it seems to work. There is also the fact that what works may be total overkill (e.g. why do I need a fully featured, load balance cloud scalable web server with 100 plugins to serve one text file to 5 clients, typically one at a time?). As time goes by, it's getting harder and harder to hire developers who fully understand their output.
Oh, what I like to call "the great compromise", a.k.a. design-by-committee. One of my top professional pet peeves. Don't get me started ranting on this topic.
