this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
113 points (87.9% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
11 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What incentive would they have? What competition is there?
They would have no incentive of course. A Win11 system with the TPM turned off would be infected with malware straight away.
You haven't used Windows in at least a decade, have you?
Windows 10 and 11 come by default with Defender, which is one of the best anti-viruses on the block. And it is always enabled unless you install a different AV.
From business standpoint, it simply bleeds you potential profits. If tens of percents skimp on two of your OS iterations in a row and keep windows 10 (which most of were "free" upgrades from Win 7 to begin with) then you are losing lot of revenue in a long run. I got the original win 10 upgrade in 2015 (bought win 7 in 2011) , in 2020 build a new PC and still use that licence on it.I possibly see myself using Win 10 well into 2026/2027 when my PC is due for complete replacement. So that is over 15 years period where MS saw no money from me while I still use completely legal version of OS. If there was no TPM requirement, I would probabably already be on Win 11
You make it sound like MS cares about home users at all. MS makes money off business licensing. Forcing businesses to dump old equipment is a big win for them.
It’s not like the people that aren’t upgrading were making them any money anyways. MS doesn’t care about you or the 10’s of people that decide to not upgrade.
Businesses swap hardware every 2-4 years anyway, for support or warranty reasons.
My company shoots for 5 year life on desktops, 3 on laptops. At that mark we evaluate if the machine is still supported and doing the job it needs to do.
If either of those things are not true then we replace the unit.
Smaller companies that I have worked for tried to stretch most hardware to double that, but it was always a bad idea imo.
Microsoft doesn’t make their money selling to consumers, they make their money selling to businesses. Thats why you don’t really need a Windows license, and why the OS is filled to the brim with garbage
It would be a fair assumption if Microsoft's clients were individuals and businesses, but their main clients are the OEMs that buy and package Windows licenses with the computers they sell.
Now, I don't see why OEMs would ask Microsoft to drop this requirement (it's not particularly hard or unbearably expensive to add TPM), and even if they did they don't have a say in this as Microsoft has hard hardware requirements for Windows PC.
OEMs benefit from the rule. People (as in the average non-techie) who have older hardware or don't have the right bios settings will feel the need to purchase new hardware that is already running the latest version of Windows.
I think they will rethink things only if it's cutting into the profits enough. Unfortunately, most people won't understand the issue and just buy something new if they can. Of those that didn't upgrade, a chunk might also be people who can't upgrade because of compatibility reasons (ex. Lots of healthcare providers only RECENTLY switched to Windows 10). The remaining portion might just use Linux.
Overall they get more out of keeping the requirement unfortunately?
I don't think most people would buy a new computer if the OS cannot upgrade. Average Joe can't afford that, Joe would rather stay on an EOL system and hope everything is alright.
It depends on the country you live in. A computer isn’t such a big expense in some countries and people will just drop 500$ for a new computer without thinking about it.
$500 is an enormous sum to throw out without thinking, even in places where it's not an above-average monthly salary. An average person wouldn't throw out a perfectly good computer just because his OS told him to, he would think "how bad could it be?" unless the system literally bricks itself.
Yeah but if you combine that with the fact that their computer is getting slower, can’t run some demanding games and so on.
Just look at the way people are replacing perfectly working 2 years old phones. It’s even more obvious.
I only really know better-off people in big cities doing so with phones (closest to a really common case would be important things like Whatsapp stopping working). Also a non-flagship phone doesn't cost nearly as much as a computer.
In my country almost 50% of people go for an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy. So they pay at least 400-500$ and it’s a sum which could give you a decent computer. But they usually pay through their phone subscription so they don’t see it that way.