The upgrade difficulties in large organizations are often brought upon themselves with poor adherance to public standards and insufficient test automation. Last I checked, Google itself is a large organization, and they don't seem to have any worries over the rate at which software gets updated.
Google is a big organization in the business of developing web software. Most organizations are in other businesses. If I'm running a construction company, it doesn't make sense to have IT consultants come in each time a new version of something comes out. If it works, it's best to leave it alone, modulo security fixes.
Do you feel the need to upgrade your house's plumbing system and electrical each time an innovation happens? That's how most people feel about software.
When the electrical grid connecting to your house get updated and no longer supports your installed system you upgrade as well or you don't get electricity.
I don't. Why would I want to upgrade my fixtures twice a year if they're working and look fine? I'd be happy to keep the same set for 20 years, myself.
Is it really worth carrying a metaphor out to its absurd conclusion? A web browser does not exactly equate to a plumbing fixture, yet they both have maturation cycles that prompt people to upgrade over time. Browser technology moves faster than plumbing, I don't think anyone would be terribly surprised by that revelation, yet when plumbing technology advances I will upgrade. I will upgrade sooner rather than later because the savings in time and energy pay off over time, just like with browser technology. The further behind the cycle I remain, the more it costs me to modernize in the future and the more it costs me to stick with the old. The literal time period is completely irrelevant.
