Planned obsolescence - when Microsoft decides your computer is garbage
Part 2 in the series: "When IT Forgets Who It Serves"
Although it has been in October previous year, what happened there still annoys me and I think is worth being mentioned in my series of "when IT forgets who it serves".
In October 2025, Microsoft stopped supporting Windows 10. Suddelnly millions of computers, which were doing their job perfectly well the day before, are now classified as "insecure" and "unsupported."
To continue receiving security updates, one needed to either upgrade to Windows 11 (which even fully functional hardware didn't support) or becoming a potential security risk. Thankfully EU regulations at least made sure that in Europe this day was shifted by a year, but it basically just shifted the inevitable.
The question for what did we actually get a new Windows? So that one can continue doing exactly what one was doing before, running spreadsheets, email, and surfing the net.
This is the IT industry at its most arrogant: declaring millions of functioning devices obsolete not because they're broken, but because we've decided it's time for you to buy new ones.
The staggering scale of waste
Let's be clear about what Microsoft's Windows 10 end-of-support means:
According to recent estimates, approximately 240 million PCs worldwide cannot upgrade to Windows 11 due to hardware requirements. These aren't ancient machines from 2005. Many are from 2018-2020, devices that are 4-6 years old, in their prime for typical computer lifespans. For example my personal gaming laptop, which runs even recent games still at a decent rate, but is not good enough for running the foundation underneath. Same with the office laptop of my wife, or the university laptop from my daughter.
All of these machines work perfectly fine. They boot up. They run applications. They browse the web. They process documents. They do everything their owners need them to do.
But Microsoft has decreed: these computers are now "insecure" and must be replaced or left without security updates.
The environmental impact is staggering. The United Nations estimates that electronic waste is the fastest-growing waste stream globally, with only 17% of it properly recycled. We're about to dump millions of functioning computers into this waste stream, not because they failed, but because a company in Redmond decided it was time.
Would we Accept this anywhere else?
Imagine if other industries operated this way.
The refrigerator scenario
You bought a refrigerator in 2019. It works perfectly, keeps food cold, makes ice, doesn't make weird noises. It's exactly what you need.
Then the manufacturer announces: "We're no longer supporting 2019 models. We won't provide any maintenance, parts, or safety updates. If there's a cooling fluid leak issue discovered, we won't fix it. You should buy our 2024 model."
You ask: "But my refrigerator works fine. What's wrong with it?"
"Nothing," they respond. "But our new model has a smart screen, WiFi connectivity, and requires a more powerful compressor that your kitchen's electrical system can't handle. You'll need to upgrade your electrical panel too. That'll be €3,000."
"I don't need a smart screen. I just need it to keep food cold."
"Sorry. That's not how we do things anymore. Your choice: buy the new one or use an unsupported refrigerator at your own risk."
You'd call your lawyer. Consumer protection agencies would be investigating. The manufacturer would face massive backlash.
By the way: my 22 year old washing machine needed a new part (if really has all rights to do so after that time) and the company offered still full service for this machine, even being proud that the machine still after all those years is doing exactly what it should be doing.
The artificial hardware requirements
Here's what makes this particularly galling: the Windows 11 hardware requirements aren't about capability. They're arbitrary gatekeeping.
Windows 11 requires TPM 2.0 (a security chip), specific processor generations, and UEFI firmware. The stated reason is security. The practical effect is forcing hardware upgrades.
But here's the dirty secret: Windows 11 can run on older hardware. Enthusiasts have installed it on machines that don't meet requirements, and it works fine. Microsoft artificially blocks the installation, not because the hardware can't handle it, but because they've decided it shouldn't.
It's the equivalent of your refrigerator manufacturer installing a chip that prevents the appliance from running unless you have their approved electrical outlet, not because your electricity is inadequate, but because they want to control your upgrade cycle.
The "security" excuse
"But security updates are critical!" defenders argue. "Running unsupported software is dangerous!"
This argument has merit, but it's also convenient misdirection. Let's examine it honestly.
First: whose fault is this? If Windows requires continuous security patching because it's fundamentally vulnerable, that's Microsoft's engineering problem. They built an operating system that needs constant fixing, then use that need to force hardware upgrades. They created the dependency, then weaponized it. And by the way: since Windows requires since decades continuous security updates, why should Windows 11 suddenly be different? It will still receive continously updates, so the security argument is just arbritary at best.
Second: selective security concerns. Microsoft supports Windows 10 IoT Enterprise until 2032. Same codebase, same vulnerabilities, but industrial customers get extended support. Why? Because industrial customers have negotiating power and would sue. Regular consumers don't, so we get forced obsolescence.
Third: extended support exists for a price. Microsoft offers Extended Security Updates for Windows 10 at €61 per device for the first year, escalating annually. So security updates are possible, they're just holding them hostage. Pay up or replace your hardware. This isn't about security; it's about revenue. Thankfully EU regulations have mandated here a different story for EU customers.
Fourth: what actually changed? On October 14, 2025, Windows 10 didn't suddenly become insecure. The vulnerabilities that will be discovered in November 2025 existed in October 2025. Microsoft is simply choosing not to fix them, creating insecurity through neglect, then blaming users for the consequences.
The foundation no one asked to replace
Here's what bothers me most as someone who's worked in IT for decades: an operating system is supposed to be foundational infrastructure. It's the baseline that enables everything else.
Most users, and I mean the vast majority, use their computers for:
Ask yourself: did any of these activities require Windows 11? Did the transition from Windows 10 to Windows 11 meaningfully improve how people browse the web, write emails, or use Excel?
The honest answer is no.
Windows 11's headline features, centered taskbar, rounded corners, widget panel, Android app support, are cosmetic changes or features most users don't want or use. The underlying functionality that people actually rely on hasn't fundamentally changed.
So why force the upgrade?
Because Microsoft has decided that continuous upgrading is their business model. Because hardware manufacturers want to sell new devices. Because "Windows as a Service" means you never actually own your operating system, you rent it until Microsoft decides it's time to rent you a new one.
The real cost no one talks about
The financial cost is obvious and painful, by millions of small businesses and families and corporations globally.
But there are hidden costs that dwarf the financial ones:
Environmental catastrophe. 240 million functional computers becoming electronic waste. The mining of rare earth minerals for replacements. The carbon footprint of manufacturing new devices. The toxic waste from improper e-waste disposal in developing countries. This is an ecological disaster driven by corporate profit motives, not technical necessity.
Productivity loss. Every forced hardware upgrade means migration time, transferring files, reinstalling software, reconfiguring systems, training users on new interfaces. Thousands of person-hours lost across millions of users.
Small business disruption. Small businesses worldwide operate on thin margins. A forced €20,000 technology expense can be devastating, delayed hiring, reduced inventory, cut benefits, or even closure.
Digital divide expansion. Schools, libraries, nonprofits, and low-income individuals can't afford constant hardware replacement. They're left with devices that become increasingly insecure, or they're locked out of the digital world entirely. Microsoft's arbitrary requirements effectively tax the poor.
The trust erosion. Every forced upgrade tells users: "You don't own this. We can break it whenever we want, and you'll pay to fix what we broke." This breeds resentment and learned helplessness.
What Microsoft could have done
This didn't have to be this way. Microsoft had alternatives:
Option 1: Longer support lifecycles. Windows XP was supported for 13 years. Windows 7 for 11 years. Windows 10 is getting 10 years. Why the trend toward shorter support? Corporate convenience, not technical necessity. They could have committed to 15-year support cycles for operating systems, matching typical hardware lifespans.
Option 2: Reasonable hardware requirements. The TPM 2.0 requirement alone disqualifies millions of capable machines. If security was truly the concern, offer a version without features that require it, or make it optional with clear warnings. Let users make informed decisions about their risk tolerance.
Option 3: Separate security from features. Provide security updates for Windows 10 indefinitely, while offering Windows 11 as an optional upgrade for those who want new features. This is how Linux distributions work, you get security patches regardless of which version you run.
Option 4: Allow downgraded installations. Let Windows 11 licenses work on older hardware with feature limitations. Security updates continue, new features simply don't activate. Users get protection without forced hardware replacement.
Microsoft chose none of these options. They chose profit over sustainability, convenience over customer wellbeing, and control over user autonomy.
The industry pattern
This isn't just Microsoft. It's endemic to the tech industry:
Apple regularly declares older iPhones unable to run new iOS versions, despite the hardware being capable. Google phases out Android support on arbitrary timelines. Software companies drop support for older operating systems, forcing upgrade chains.
In every case, the pattern is the same:
We've normalized planned obsolescence in IT in a way that would trigger lawsuits and regulations in any other industry.
The arrogance of "Progress"
The defense I hear constantly is: "Technology moves fast. You can't expect support forever."
This is precisely the arrogance I'm challenging.
Technology moves fast in some domains, AI capabilities, rendering performance, network speeds. But the fundamental task of displaying documents, running spreadsheets, and browsing the web hasn't changed dramatically in 15 years.
A typical accounting work in 2026 is functionally identical to accounting work in 2020. The computer that could do it then can do it now. The only thing that's changed is that Microsoft decided to stop supporting it.
That's not technological progress. That's artificial obsolescence.
When we in IT declare that "technology moves too fast" to support devices beyond arbitrary timelines, what we're really saying is: "Our convenience and profits matter more than your costs, the environment, or basic consumer fairness."
What needs to change
We need regulations that treat operating systems like the critical infrastructure they are:
Mandatory minimum support periods. Operating systems should be supported for at least 15 years from release or 10 years from last sale of hardware that shipped with them, whichever is longer.
Right to security updates. Security patches should be legally separated from feature updates. If you can provide security updates to paying enterprise customers, you can provide them to everyone.
Sustainable hardware requirements. New OS versions should run on hardware from at least 10 years prior, with degraded features if necessary but full security support.
Prohibition on artificial obsolescence. If hardware is technically capable of running software, preventing it through artificial restrictions should be illegal.
Extended producer responsibility. Companies that force hardware obsolescence should be responsible for the recycling and environmental costs of the waste they generate.
Transparency in support costs. If continuing support truly costs money, companies should be required to disclose those costs and offer paid extended support at transparent, reasonable rates.
Conclusion: The infrastructure we deserve
An operating system isn't a fashion item. It's not meant to be replaced every few years because we've decided the taskbar should be centered instead of left-aligned.
It's foundational infrastructure, the electricity that powers everything else, the roads that enable commerce, the water that sustains life.
We don't tear up functional roads because we've designed prettier asphalt. We don't condemn structurally sound buildings because architectural styles have changed. We don't force people to replace working appliances because we've added WiFi.
Or rather, we don't do these things in industries that are regulated and held accountable.
In IT, we do them constantly, and we've convinced ourselves this is normal, inevitable, and even virtuous, "keeping up with innovation."
We can build an industry that values sustainability, respects customer investment, and separates genuine progress from artificial obsolescence.
But first, we need to stop pretending that forced upgrades are about anything other than profit.