> Secondly: Your change probably isn't for the better. Not for me, not for the majority of existing customers.
Things could be much worse. When the change suddenly prevents users from doing X, something they invested all that time, attention and effort to be able to do all without an option to change back. All software where updates are controlled by a party that develops it is at constant risk of becoming a piece of junk for and frustrating at least some of its users or most or all of them. In comparison it's not that big of a deal if software is a new competing alternative, like Wayland for example. If it breaks lots of use cases for existing users it will simply not get anywhere, only fragment ecosystem a bit with new niches.
Things could be much worse. When the change suddenly prevents users from doing X, something they invested all that time, attention and effort to be able to do all without an option to change back. All software where updates are controlled by a party that develops it is at constant risk of becoming a piece of junk for and frustrating at least some of its users or most or all of them. In comparison it's not that big of a deal if software is a new competing alternative, like Wayland for example. If it breaks lots of use cases for existing users it will simply not get anywhere, only fragment ecosystem a bit with new niches.