> I can't see this being anything other than a good thing for (the vast majority of) these users and for developers.
For developers? I think they are quite capable of deciding for themselves.
For users? Here I can see where you're coming from, but let's think this through:
- Some users know how stuff works. They'll upgrade when they want to, no need to force them.
- Some users have no clue about how stuff works, but they know someone who does (e.g. my grandma and me). If there would be an opt-out of this forced upgrade, that someone (me) could perform that on their computer and upgrade them when they're ready. But there is no opt out, so instead they (me) will have a hell of an explaining job on their hands. It might actually be the perfect excuse to install Ubuntu since the only reason not to is because they're "used to Windows now". And remember, this group didn't need a forced upgrade in the first place since they have someone who helps them stay up to date and does stuff that needs doing.
- Some users have no clue and have nobody to help them. There's no point trying to get them the latest updates when they'll click accept on anything their screen tells them to accept (e.g. fake flash update). Some protection is better than none and thus Edge is better than IE8, I agree on that, but I'm not sure there is that much of a point. And they may become unable to use a computer altogether with a disruptive change like this.
In other words, nobody benefits. Maybe not even Microsoft, but I can't tell yet.