It's probably a bit chaotic, but some of the arguments that i made were that "updates" is too broad a term to be meaningful, since you might be interested in security updates without any other sorts of breaking changes being forced upon you:

  Types of updates are the problem
  
  The problem here is that we never differentiate between the types of updates properly:
   - major leaps in the development of the software which add new features
   - security updates that don't change any actual functionality apart from the security fix
   - bug fixes that should not alter any functionality in significant ways
   - small backwards compatible feature updates that are essentially opt in

But perhaps the current situation that we're in is simply a reflection of the current industry and market conditions, where companies try to have their products remain competitive.

You can't sell stable software (or hardware) that has a new feature once every 10 years, when there are products out there that release new stuff monthly - at least when it comes to the layperson, otherwise we wouldn't have enterprises like Google or Facebook make significant UI/UX changes, since none of those make sense from a purely engineering oriented point of view.

Of course, that's just my interpretation after applying Occam's razor - for some reason we don't hear much about extremely stable products as success stories.