"I don't have to grease my car, replace the hydraulic fluid, top off the battery, or do any of the dozens of routine things I used to have to do to keep my old Delta 88 running."

What you're really saying is that the maintenance of one of the most common and essential pieces of technology, the automobile, which used to be well within the capabilities of an illiterate shade-tree mechanic, must now be taken over by a highly trained tech with expensive and complex diagnostic gear. So they are not just selling you a car, they are selling you a maintenance program, too. You are not just buying goods, you are buying services, whether you want them or not.

The same thing happens at the production end, instead of paying an auto worker to install a cam and spring in some mechanical feedback loop and adjusting it with simple tools so it runs right, you now get rid of that required skill set and replace it by a computer chip that does the same job but that can be plugged in by a robot. And of course, if the chip fails (in spite of its touted reliability) you just can't go under the hood and re-tune the mechanism with a screwdriver, you have to diagnose the fault electronically and order a new chip from the factory (if they still make the damned thing).

Sure, a lot of times the more technological solution is a better one, no one denies that; but I submit that its effectiveness does not determine its implementation, the suits primarily want to save some money and that's what determines their decision.

It's obvious, TB, that you are really not looking at these issues with an overall perspective. Do you really think economic decisions that interfere with sound engineering principles are something I just made up?