That article would be more believable if Microsoft (as well as other companies) hadn't slipped all kinds of stuff in earlier updates which are not on the interest of the consumer at all. (Starting with annoying UX changes and A/B tests, to telemetry, to advertising, to removal of user software and DRM)
Oftentimes it looks suspiciously as if the (rightful) need for security and quick responses is used as an excuse for "OS-as-a-service" shift that mostly benefits the vendors.
What happened to the old practice of clearly distinguishing between "security" and "feature" updates? What happened to actually educating the users?
Interesting tidbit from the bottom of this thread [1]: Windows actually has a pretty clear distinction between "security" and "crap-no-one-needs" updates and even offers a way to restrict to security updates only - in the LTSB version which is exclusively available to enterprise customers [2].
I take that as a proof that the whole discussion is more about pushing Windows-as-a-service than about actually caring for security.
MS is 100% responsible for this and they should reap what they sowed. Imo this blame shifting PR damage control is just insult to injury and will probably backfire.
Oftentimes it looks suspiciously as if the (rightful) need for security and quick responses is used as an excuse for "OS-as-a-service" shift that mostly benefits the vendors.
What happened to the old practice of clearly distinguishing between "security" and "feature" updates? What happened to actually educating the users?