Informed users are learning software updates are frequently not in their best interest. Consider Windows for example. Setting it to "critical updates only" certainly does not screen out the non-security-critical bloat. There are similar examples in the embedded space, where a vendor decides to disable some popular feature against users' preferences. Examples in smartphone apps are legion (the BBC news app is a prominent example).
So, this is slowly corroding users' trust in their SW suppliers, which---given the conflicting motives of user and vendor---is unavoidable, but obviously not good for security and reliability.
The Crowdstrike incident is different, mostly. By definition, what they are trying to do requires frequent (daily?) updates, so the systemic blame (besides what has been mentioned above---which I agree with) needs to fall on the OS which requires mitigations like Crowdstrike to function safely.
Despite this, to me it's another example of how a computing culture of "continuous updates == security == good" can come back to bite you. The benefits of software updates need to be balanced against the potential harms; this is rarely if ever discussed, probably because it tends to shine a light on user-hostile policies. Personally, I would avoid software updates on most of my embedded devices if I could, and I make embedded software for a living.