> I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption is "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fau

> I don't really believe in an internet where the default assumption is "you have to rewrite your application within two years, or if it's broken it is your fault" In a way I agree; the lack of stability is costly for users, especially in managed environments where changes needs to be planned and tested thoroughly before deployment. Frequent updates do seem to greatly improve quality, but the lack of support for old versions is painful. It's a way of shifting the cost of old versions from the vendor (who would have to maintain them) to the user (who has to deal with the updates). On the other hand, Google does the same thing and it seems like the norm now for software, especially web and Internet-based applications. I've come across many web apps that will only support the latest (or two latest) versions of browsers. It's also far better for security. Arguably nobody has less reason to complain than Google: It's their own practice, and possibly nobody has better resources for keeping up - money, personnel, talent, and expertise - they make browsers themselves.