Then it's a poorly designed vehicle and you shouldn't buy it in the first place. That is your right as a consumer, I assure you there are other companies who'd love to sell you their versions, find one that suits you. And remember, the issue being discussed isn't impossible to replace functionality, it's that somehow one of these other companies thinks the ability to replace, or the way it's replaced, or something (the info is a bit vague) should be made more to their needs.
But to turn it around and be equally extreme, if the car is just an engine and some axles, because you must choose the rest, and the auto-maker can't provide defaults (people might just use them, and not look at competitors), do you really want every buyer to cobble together their own regardless of skill level and needs? Is that honestly how you'd build your system for users?
Regarding raindrops and floods, you'd be surprised. Work some weekends because partners need help, or because someone dropped the ball and Ops needs support. Yell at the architects until they listen and look at your results to build into the next version, push for features because they're what you want in your product when you use it. You get that responsibility feeling as a matter of course, if you're doing the job right. Of course, I can't speak for the company overall, maybe it's different over in Windows. But hey, evil, remember? I'm eating babies for you*, the end users!
* - given