Could have called it 5.9.4 and saved 6.0.0 for cool UI changes...
I know what you mean, though 3rd level increments, ie 5.9.3==>5.9.4 are usually just reserved for bugfixes, eg to driver configuration. Whereas the upload to weatherlink.com is a significant new feature. But you could argue that v5.10 might have been a more reasonable designation.
But I gather that Davis preferred that the second level designation didn't run into double digits, which could occasionally be confusing, and also felt that there had been such a long run of minor version number increments in the v5.x.x series that they preferred instead to set a new reference point in the version number at v6.0. I an also see that it's potentially marginally clearer if a user is asking whether they can upload to wl.com with a USB logger to be able to answer that they must be running WLv6 rather than some other less memorable version. But I agree that it's a fairly arbitrary decision, though I can understand some of the thinking behind it.
And actually I'm not convinced that there are any cool UI changes waiting in the wings, though I could well be proved wrong. But I'm not sure that Davis's future software strategy doesn't revolve around (i) some simple local software to manage uploads to weatherlink.com, and then with an expanded set of viewing and analysis services available on the web platform; and (ii) for those users who do want local data handling then the software would be more like the Envoy8X's WDTU with a comprehensive set of data dumped into an SQL database and with the market open for third-party viewing/analysis software to rule the roost.
(Actually, in a small way, this introduction of v6 could be in users' favour. In the past when Davis have introduced a new major version, eg v4 to v5, this has effectively been a chargeable upgrade for prior users of v4, whereas now that v6.0 has been released it would then be more difficult to charge for eg v6.(x+1).)
@JACK10562 I suspect what Davis would argue is that it's not the facility to upload your data where they're looking to recover some money, but the presumption that once you have started to upload you will then be wanting to use the weatherlink.com server to view web pages and use the other services there such as the WU/CWOP uploads etc. Assuming that a significant percentage of users take up this option then this is obviously going to put an extra load on their server infrastructure and it's not unreasonable that the users of the service should contribute towards this extra cost. (And, of course, like many other companies that market software services, Davis can see the appeal of moving more to a subscription model. This is just an obvious commercial move nowadays I'm afraid, much like Microsoft with Office365 and other comparable commercial offerings.)
