Maybe so, but there are a handful of overriding reasons I can think offhand for why you don't make updating more automatic 1) The customer didn't ask. It's th

Maybe so, but there are a handful of overriding reasons I can think offhand for why you don't make updating more automatic 1) The customer didn't ask. It's their PC, not yours. 2) "Backwards compatibility." See: https://xkcd.com/1172/ https://xkcd.com/1172/ Basically, if you don't leave your program bit-for-bit the same as it was, maybe you break someone's shitty workflow that you could not possibly have predicted and which has no grounding in anything sane. 3) BIG ONE!!! You might have made a mistake. The old version worked fine, for millions of your customers. But you just pushed a version that causes a fairly common setup to have all sorts of problems. How do you protect against this? Well, for one thing, you can make the update process a bit more involved. Track it better. Keep logs. Nip it in the bud. (Meaning when the first few complaints from early adopters - who jump through the hurdles - trickle in. Not millions at once.) That way you won't accidentally screw your whole entire installed base for NO reason (what they had was working fine) and cause literally millions of dollars of damage (lost productivity as people, some of whom have no access to any IT, simply cannot see their screens anymore). 4) Maybe your installer is not doing what you think it will do. i.e. vulnerability or error in installer. When you mess remotely on a user's PC, this is not to be taken lightly. At all. This is actually squarely the territory we're in with this article. So, I find it kind of funny that in an article on an update vulnerability, someone quips that not only that, but it should be WAY more automatic! :)