Did they ever stop and think that sometimes updating software is a pain ** *** ***, changes the way you work for no good reason, and sometimes breaks things? These things are never mentioned. It's always security security security. If I were to upgrade my iTunes, I'd lose significant functionality in that the new versions don't allow multiple windows to be open.
Upgraded software doesn't always result in improved functionality and security. People often run EOL software because no replacement is quite as good as what they have now.
There is a difference between using a particular obsolete software because it has no replacement and not updating a popular one. Why MS forces updates for home versions, because people are lazy to update; i see it all the time, Win7 without SPs at all. If Average Joe was not so lazy and willing to spend more time to learn his OS instead of posting selfies on Facebook, we would have less infections.
Not always, but mostly yes. Like 7-zip's DLL, which is used in a lot of software and that serious remote vulnerability affected everyone, portable software included. I doubt even 10% of people updated any of them, why bother, when it works, right? At most, they have updated 7-zip, which does not really help to other software. And that is just one, there are dozens of vulnerabilities. To be honest, some laziness is granted, even I sometimes skip updating, it is just too bothersome with zero benefits, I wish there was a software, which would update at least the most commonly used apps, but unfortunately there is not a single one. Secunia PSI was a good try, but eventually failed, most likely because of the lack of interest.
I think with VLC most people don't upgrade because they don't realise there is a new version. MPC-HC and SMPlayer both inform you about any upgrades when you open them. I don't recall VLC ever doing this.
It depends if the application is checking for updates. Some applications have this option enabled by default ("check for updates", "auto-update", or similar options), some not. If it is not enabled by default, the user has to enable it first to get a "new version available"-notice.
I think the average joe can easily get tired of constant updates. Perhaps the industry should slow down the frantic pace of daily updates and switch to model with a longer time frame. With added urgency that it gets done. I dislike piecemeal upgrades every day, but don't I mind larger Service Pack style stuff.
+1, too many updates for useless stuff. In case of a found vulnerability, it is ok, but a update just because user X has incompatibility with softs Y is pointless.
Yes. Then there are updates to change how the program looks. Oftentimes nowadays it becomes more confusing, or limiting in some way. And a program that undergoes too many updates tells me it's still in testing phases and may not be architected right. After all, they're fixing something that *IS* broken. I suppose simply not being an early adopter helps alleviate that.
