ITT: surprisingly many people think that software grows on trees and is harvested twice a year to get new versions of it. And that if you miss your harvesting

ITT: surprisingly many people think that software grows on trees and is harvested twice a year to get new versions of it. And that if you miss your harvesting cycle you might as well close your software farm and just kill over and die. The way I see it, the primary motivation for software longevity should be the hardware longevity. Ideally, software needs to outlive the hardware rather than the other way around. But we came to expect ridiculously short version iterations because this process was a major profit driver for software companies. If modern hardware happens to be more reliable than what was the norm 20-30 years ago, then, naturally, we should want the software to adjust to service the modern hardware. And if this doesn't happen -- it's a problem. In this instance, it seems to be an indication of companies big and small trying to sell worse quality software than what was reasonably possible while duping the audience into believing that the quality is still good. Well, of course it is upsetting! Why would you even think otherwise?