Agreed, I'd love to see some data on that claim, and for it to be in context with the friction a new design has against an existing userbase when a design chang

Agreed, I'd love to see some data on that claim, and for it to be in context with the friction a new design has against an existing userbase when a design change occurs. I get that as time goes on, functionality, usecases, userbases, developers, frameworks, etc all evolve over time, and it's wise to make changes to keep up with those shifts in paradigms (rise of mobile use vs desktop in the 2010's for example). Never once heard: "Man, I sure wish this thing that I've gotten used to and enjoy using for the passed 10 years would suddenly reshuffle everything so I have to relearn where everything is just so it keeps up with whatever the new trend is". To be frank, sounds more like someone in search of some job security. Changes are necessary over time yes, but without some studies backing it up, I can't fathom that change for the sake of staying "fresh" belongs anywhere in software design and development. As an imperative from marketing/management to attract a new userbase, sure, but that's not a Design or Dev motive. If there's an opportunity to unify the standard of design or consolidating/eliminating technical debt while undergoing a significant overhaul, sure, understandable. But "It seems a little stale, we should change it"? From a User's perspective? Please don't.