When things like this happen, is it any wonder an increasing number of users are viewing any sort of "updates" with extreme apprehension? "It was working fine just before, and now I've lost everything. Why should I have even updated!?!?" I still remember when the general advice was "do not upgrade/change what works, unless you need something in a later version", which then changed to "updates are recommended", follow…
I definitely feel the increasing apprehension and postpone updates for as long as possible all the time. But the change to "mandatory updates" came after numerous incidents of "millions of users running unpatched software fell victim to the latest exploit". This kind of bad publicity started the trend of software makers forcing updates on users. Separating security patches from feature updates is better but doesn't 1…
It's a nice thought to separate "security" and "feature" updates, but I'm not sure if its realistically achievable.
----
Looking at the bigger picture, I think the issue is that once developers/managers got into the habit of forcing updates on users, it became an excuse for skimping on QA/QC. "If there's any bugs, we can just fix them in the next release". But there's a huge difference between internally finding a bug, analyzing its potential impact, then deciding it isn't a blocker and expecting your users to find bugs for you.