This is an article with its heart in the right place and some thought-provoking points, but it misses some big, important stuff. In my opinion, a better argument would have been titled "Why we should design things to be PERMANENT."

I agree. I posted this article because of those reasons. I did find it overall a bit lacklustre but thought it still presented an interesting point of discussion. I think this also raises a good point about how much a title can affect people's perception of your work.

I'm reminded of a piece I read in critique of research last year. It was by Milton Babbit and was was about the place of 'specialist' (i.e. academic) composition in wider culture. Accordingly, he sent it off entitled "The Composer as Specialist." However, it was published as "Who Cares If You Listen?" As a result, everyone reads it as considerably more elitist and/or attacking than it was ever intended. Still, getting a bit sidetracked.

I like your perspective of things being designed to be permanent. It certainly places a necessary onus on the decisions we chose to make. If things constantly keep changing with each iteration, that should signal a reconsideration of what your product actually is. It would suggest that either your initial or current considerations are unfounded. Which certainly demands close review.

This is complete speculation, but maybe things like the Sketchup yearly UI changes are done because it attracts people who don't already own it or are not daily users ? "Oh wow, look how much they've updated it! That must make it great." I don't know.

I think Jonothan Ive has always had a good view on simplicity:

Simplicity is not the absence of clutter, that's a consequence of simplicity. Simplicity is somehow essentially describing the purpose and place of an object and product. The absence of clutter is just a clutter-free product. That's not simple.

I think that reflects what you were saying about designing as if permanent. That approach demands acute attention to why something is the way it is. It's "purpose and place." It also doesn't dismiss the ability of something to be perform complex functions. It must just be warranted and well-implemented.