I guess I was mostly thinking about it from the user side of software, not in-house software. If it's in-house there's a cost to any kind of software changes. But keeping someone else's software up-to-date usually involves running some backups and migrations, updating configuration, planning out deployments and so on. Still takes work and planning, but the more frequent the updates, the less work it is. Of course, things become end-of-life and then you have to potentially have to make "in-house" changes that take a lot of work. But it seems like a lot of companies are on LTS versions of things just because they didn't take the time to plan how they were going to do upgrades. So because they don't have the processes in place themselves, they outsource that to Microsoft to maintain the existing versions indefinitely.