Hypotheticals be hypotheticals, but here we don't have a case of the lowest bidder screwing up maintenance of a potentially dangerous piece of infrastructure; instead, we have the incumbent breaking aforementioned hardware on purpose, and blaming it on the lowest bidder.
Honestly, I think China got this right. Business is business, but when you start screwing with critical infrastructure, a firing squad should be on the table. And in this case, at least months to years of prison.
And if the manufacturer could have justified the additional $3mln in cost besides "vendor lock in" maybe they wouldn't have to break the law to keep customers coming back.
Hypotheticals be hypotheticals, but here we don't have a case of the lowest bidder screwing up maintenance of a potentially dangerous piece of infrastructure; instead, we have the incumbent breaking aforementioned hardware on purpose, and blaming it on the lowest bidder.
Honestly, I think China got this right. Business is business, but when you start screwing with critical infrastructure, a firing squad should be on the table. And in this case, at least months to years of prison.
In this case the lower offer was 22mln PLN, whereas the manufacturer's offer was 25mln.
And if the manufacturer could have justified the additional $3mln in cost besides "vendor lock in" maybe they wouldn't have to break the law to keep customers coming back.
It's 3mln PLN, so more like $750k... It must have been worth it, right?
It's also great to see others trusting a servicing shop that customers are forced to use no matter how sloppy or incompetent their work.