Comment by 1vuio0pswjnm7

"If it was off by default, most users would ask why it was off by default and why are they being tricked into being left to use outdated versions."

What evidence do you have to support this idea? Is there somewhere we can view the feedback from this majority of users who believe they are being "tricked" into using "outdated" versions. I have observed that developers are the ones who are desperate to push "updates", to automatically install new code on the user's computer with no user interaction required. Users who bother to give feedback about software often complain about newer versions being not as good as the old ones. They often question the nature of supposed "improvements".

One of the things some shareware used to do, and software "installers" used to do in general, was to ask the user a series of questions to configure the settings before the first run of the program. I am not suggesting that I prefer that approach, but the idea that someone would purport to believe that setting automatic update checks by default and acceptance of ongoing remotely controlled software installation by default is "the norm" just shows how today's software authors make assumptions, and indeed engage in "trickery" through manipulation of defaults via "dark patterns", that software authors in the past generally did not make.

Thats why a reference to "shareware is coming back" is, IMO, quite funny. Today we have someone claiming he does not consider having an option off by default, and letting the user make the choice, as an alternative: "I do not know what alternative there is." The alternative is to let users turn things on instead of forcing them to turn things off. The "opt out" idea is an "alternative", one adopted by online advertising and the reason the web is such a mess. "Opt out" settings have a purpose and that purpose is not primarily for the users' benefit.