The above example might look artificial.
Here is an example that is closer to real life:
dtall=new table("data collection",<< add rows(1),New column("identifier", set value(1)));
for(i=1, i<20, i++,
dt= new table("tmp", add rows(1),
New column("identifier", set value(1)), Private
);
wait(0);
if(or(i==1, random integer(10)>2),
dt << New column ("date") << New column ("time") << New column ("site") << New column ("vendor") << New column ("country") << New column ("status")
);
New column ("value_"|| Char(Random integer(1000)));
dtall << Update(
With( dt ),
Match Columns( :identifier = :identifier ),
Replace Columns in Main Table( None )
);
close(dt, noSave)
);
In every data table, there are measurement values value_xyz and sometimes there is redundant (or unnecessary) data.
Data collection in JMP18: just the measurement values are added

Data Collection in JMP19: significant growth of the data table due to added redundant/duplicate or unnecessary data.

One might argue that it is better to add status (tmp2) 5 to the data collection than to lose this information.
Yes, there are definitely many cases where the new functionality is an improvement on the old.
However, it is undeniable that the new functionality significantly interferes with how the old platform could be used.
and with many thousand users worldwide such a change is dangerous.