No, I didn't say that..
They did say "perhaps"
In any case they've been responsive, honest, and hardworking throughout this process.
I too wish it had just worked from day one. It didn't, so now I'm glad they are seeing it through.
I'm a nerd engineer/programmer. "Perhaps" and "maybe" are used all-too-often to skirt around owning up to a mistake. A way-younger me said those all the time.
That said, programming I wrote can still be "wrong" if it's 99.99% correct. It still may not actually "work". So I get it. However, what percentage of completion was this MQB PolarFIS released at? What percentage is it now many, many months later? It still cannot tell me the main reason for me purchasing it... EGT, DPF temps, IAT, etc., etc.
All of the programming I've done cannot be tested prior to installation as it was completely custom and for huge equipment. There are bazillions of North American MQB TDI cars to complete testing on. FWIW, IMHO, this should not have been released to the paying public until it was actually ready (say >95% correct).
Using the paying, unsuspecting, and uninformed public to do your R&D, to be your quality control, and expect them to spend their time to write 100's of feedback emails, etc. is not proper business ethics to me. Again FWIW, IMHO, YMMV, etc., etc.
I too am happy they made this product. I just wish it was released with at least the same quality as my mk6 JSW PolarFIS out of the box (and after a quick update prior to installation in the hard to get to under dash space).
They have to stick with it because they already sold bunches of these. But what is "sticking with it"? How many hours a week is PolarFIS spending to rectify this situation?
How many months have already passed? (I purchased 4 months ago)
How many updates with 0.01% improvements have been released? (and we run to do them as we incorrectly assume it is going to be a greater than 0.01% improvement)
How many more months do we have to wait until we can write/read posts that say "it now works as I expected when I purchased"?