If it keeps getting broken they might reconsider.

It seems to be a very popular mindset in software development that efficiency isn't as important because of how fast hardware has gotten.

This sucks because I don't get better hardware just to make up for worse software (not that it even does; a lot of browser-based apps are painfully slow), and some of these devs end up working on weaker platforms that don't make up for their shitty programming. They might not ever touch the platform it is actually supposed to run on and instead work on a dev machine that is powerful enough to make it look good. It's possible that neither them nor anyone hiring/managing them realizes that they aren't the kind of programmer they want.

Though it's also possible that the programmers are fine and have told their managers that the CPUs just aren't powerful enough for what they want them to do but some assholes are only looking at the bottom line and have low standards for these kind of things in their own life (my TV is slow, so it's no big deal that our car interface is slow).

Worst thing is it's probably less than a $50 difference in cost to switch to something that could handle it fine, assuming it's not programmed in JavaScript and HTML or slow because it's backend is on the cloud or some shit like that, which also wouldn't surprise me.