3 ms·

I have trouble understanding the point of this move from Microsoft's perspective. You actively stop people from re-using older hardware to run windows 11. Those

I have trouble understanding the point of this move from Microsoft's perspective. You actively stop people from re-using older hardware to run windows 11. Those users have 3 options. Continue running windows 10, install alternative OS or buy new hardware. I cannot see how they would want option 1 or 2, then I have to deduct that they want people to buy new hardware to run the latest OS version. Do they want to force the increase in TPM 2.0 share in the PC market quicker? Do they want to increase hardware sales because they get more money from those than from older licenses?

quohort 2y ago
Sure, it's motivated by a bit of license turnover like you suggest. But mostly it's a case of securing their OS against adversaries (including their users). You can lock down the system a lot more with TPM on your side: Now you can keep secrets away from users reliably. I think we are seriously nearing the point of no return. Once you have manufacturers start implementing TC, that will really hamper reverse engineering efforts. Over time, the side channels will get ironed out. Enforcing TPM requirements isn't about making users make changes, it's to scare OEMs into including TPMs by default so they don't get complaints from users. Microsoft wants a more controlled hardware environment like Apple does, because it's more profitable for a variety of reasons.
- almatabata 2y ago
  > Enforcing TPM requirements isn't about making users make changes, it's to scare OEMs into including TPMs by default so they don't get complaints from users. Would any OEM dare to use workarounds to install windows 11 on not officially supported hardware? I feel like most OEMs would simply upgrade the hardware no questions asked. Simply because should any problem occur, Microsoft would just tell them your problem not ours. > Once you have manufacturers start implementing TC, that will really hamper reverse engineering efforts. Doesn't 90% of the push for this come from Media companies to implement DRM?
  - quohort 2y ago
    > Would any OEM dare to use workarounds to install windows 11 on not officially supported hardware? I feel like most OEMs would simply upgrade the hardware no questions asked. Simply because should any problem occur, Microsoft would just tell them your problem not ours. Well on a basic level, if the consumer buys your motherboard or laptop and it doesn't work out of the box (but your competitors do) then you are going to have a massive customer satisfaction problem. > Doesn't 90% of the push for this come from Media companies to implement DRM? I don't think so. DRM is an old lens of understanding the problem from the last generation. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg . The new methods use a softer approach. Consider something like iOS where the developers can just make it very uncomfortable to do something like download a video and watch it. There's no bittorrent app or p2p file-sharing, there's no real filesystem, and there is no real standalone video player. So users rely on streaming services to do this for them, and you can charge money to middle-man that service. You don't need to strictly enforce copyright like with DRM, just use trusted computing so that the entire system discourages general computer-like operations (including copying files, running programs, etc.) and encourages acting like a thin client to some server. This is a much better model because some small fraction of users still DO need to have general-purpose computing to make consumables in the first place (for example, video editors or musicians, writers, programmers) but the majority of the user-base is discouraged for a variety of reasons. The more you can separate the creator of information from the user of information, the more you can charge the user to access the creator. You can't replace the OS or any of the parts of the machine because of trusted computing, so you cannot really use reverse engineering to simply break the system (and if you do, it may break the trust chain you now need to access now-networked services). Another example is that on a lot of phones and laptops these days, you can't add removable storage, so you are heavily encouraged to use cloud storage. And you are discouraged from using cloud services from any third party (usually on an API level, as services provided from the OS vendor can integrate better with the system). Consider how Apple pushes iCloud and Microsoft pushes OneCloud.
    - almatabata 2y ago
      > Well on a basic level, if the consumer buys your motherboard or laptop and it doesn't work out of the box (but your competitors do) then you are going to have a massive customer satisfaction problem. Ah I see what you mean. I over-focused on the full integrated system with pre-installed windows. > I don't think so. DRM is an old lens of understanding the problem from the last generation. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg . The new methods use a softer approach. Thanks for the link.
- simonblack 2y ago
  Once you have manufacturers start implementing TC, that will really hamper reverse engineering efforts. Imagine the possibilities of capturing the non-Microsoft market be allowing the TC to be turned off, or by not including it. When it comes to Microsoft, there is an old business saying: "Never turn away a paying customer", because you will not only lose this sale, you will lose all future sales too.
9dev 2y ago
It also wouldn’t be Microsoft if they wouldn’t ceaselessly harass those users to upgrade to Windows 11, even if they’re using a non-upgradable laptop that will never see a new mainboard. It’s so braindead, I’m convinced at this point that Windows has been degraded to a mere sales funnel that is to be monetized at any cost.
- szundi 2y ago
  Exactly. They could just add a check before the ad: is there a tpm2 device there? But no, it is 13 story points, we don’t have time vs some other knife into the back Of our unsuspecting cow (user)
szundi 2y ago
Apple has a very good rate of people using the newest OS, they became envious. … wait what
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  I dunno what the "wait what" is for to be honest, because you have a good point and / or a sore spot for Microsoft; MacOS users (generally speaking) trust Apple, they have a great track record with gradual OS updates and minimal surprise even when they do major overhauls, with minimal or gradual updates to their visual design over the past 24 years (Aqua with OSX, then slowly dropping the skeuomorphic / Frutiger design language for flat design over time.) They're claiming 2020's Big Sur was their biggest visual overhaul, but it was a smooth transition. Compare Microsoft that tried various different visual overhauls in the same period, first with Windows XP (2001) leaning into the Fruitiger asthetic, then Windows Vista and 7 (Aero design), Metro (windows 8, windows mobile) and now Fluent (windows 10 and beyond). While trying to add more monetization via ads and office365 integration. I'm not saying Apple is not guilty of the monetization, they've had three different incarnations of their cloud offerings before iCloud settled things (iirc) and they do promote it within MacOS, but it doesn't come across as cynically as MS's offerings do.
katzinsky 2y ago
They're jealous of the platform Apple has created where they can sell the users rather than sell software to them. This requires cryptographic hardware like the TPM. Obviously it's not going to work because the only advantage Windows had was being the last popular platform that didn't work this way^ but the admins in charge of the decisions probably don't understand this. ^There also used to be compatibility with early y2k apps and familiarity of users from school but both of those have been quickly eroding. EDIT: Out of replies Trapping 20% of tech illiterate users would be a loss considering they currently have upwards of 80%.
- almatabata 2y ago
  > Obviously it's not going to work because the only advantage Windows had was being the last popular platform that didn't work this way^ but the admins in charge of the decisions probably don't understand this. If they can trap 20% of tech illiterate customers into their garden would that not already count as a win? Now they can extract more money from them than they could before.
synicalx 2y ago
Option 1 is arguably not an option in a lot of people's minds with the EOL date for W10 coming up, and threatening/pushy notifications from MS on all W10 machines telling people to upgrade to W11. Option 2 is a non-starter for a lot of people - can't afford a Mac, would never be able to work out Linux. ChromeOS is an option but if you're going to buy new hardware, why not just go with option 3 and get a new Windows machine. Option 3 is MS's favourite; they shift more unit of their own hardware, failing that they shift more licenses from OEMs, they lock more people into W11, then progressively upsell them stuff from within the OS itself, and finally make more money off of advertising from 3rd parties in the OS itself. I'm also inclined to think that by creating a generational gap with hardware like this, MS is making their own lives easier by only having to test W11 on modern hardware - no legacy users to support. So they make more money, potentially for less effort.

quohort 2y ago

Sure, it's motivated by a bit of license turnover like you suggest. But mostly it's a case of securing their OS against adversaries (including their users). You can lock down the system a lot more with TPM on your side: Now you can keep secrets away from users reliably. I think we are seriously nearing the point of no return. Once you have manufacturers start implementing TC, that will really hamper reverse engineering efforts. Over time, the side channels will get ironed out. Enforcing TPM requirements isn't about making users make changes, it's to scare OEMs into including TPMs by default so they don't get complaints from users. Microsoft wants a more controlled hardware environment like Apple does, because it's more profitable for a variety of reasons.

almatabata 2y ago
> Enforcing TPM requirements isn't about making users make changes, it's to scare OEMs into including TPMs by default so they don't get complaints from users. Would any OEM dare to use workarounds to install windows 11 on not officially supported hardware? I feel like most OEMs would simply upgrade the hardware no questions asked. Simply because should any problem occur, Microsoft would just tell them your problem not ours. > Once you have manufacturers start implementing TC, that will really hamper reverse engineering efforts. Doesn't 90% of the push for this come from Media companies to implement DRM?
- quohort 2y ago
  > Would any OEM dare to use workarounds to install windows 11 on not officially supported hardware? I feel like most OEMs would simply upgrade the hardware no questions asked. Simply because should any problem occur, Microsoft would just tell them your problem not ours. Well on a basic level, if the consumer buys your motherboard or laptop and it doesn't work out of the box (but your competitors do) then you are going to have a massive customer satisfaction problem. > Doesn't 90% of the push for this come from Media companies to implement DRM? I don't think so. DRM is an old lens of understanding the problem from the last generation. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg . The new methods use a softer approach. Consider something like iOS where the developers can just make it very uncomfortable to do something like download a video and watch it. There's no bittorrent app or p2p file-sharing, there's no real filesystem, and there is no real standalone video player. So users rely on streaming services to do this for them, and you can charge money to middle-man that service. You don't need to strictly enforce copyright like with DRM, just use trusted computing so that the entire system discourages general computer-like operations (including copying files, running programs, etc.) and encourages acting like a thin client to some server. This is a much better model because some small fraction of users still DO need to have general-purpose computing to make consumables in the first place (for example, video editors or musicians, writers, programmers) but the majority of the user-base is discouraged for a variety of reasons. The more you can separate the creator of information from the user of information, the more you can charge the user to access the creator. You can't replace the OS or any of the parts of the machine because of trusted computing, so you cannot really use reverse engineering to simply break the system (and if you do, it may break the trust chain you now need to access now-networked services). Another example is that on a lot of phones and laptops these days, you can't add removable storage, so you are heavily encouraged to use cloud storage. And you are discouraged from using cloud services from any third party (usually on an API level, as services provided from the OS vendor can integrate better with the system). Consider how Apple pushes iCloud and Microsoft pushes OneCloud.
  - almatabata 2y ago
    > Well on a basic level, if the consumer buys your motherboard or laptop and it doesn't work out of the box (but your competitors do) then you are going to have a massive customer satisfaction problem. Ah I see what you mean. I over-focused on the full integrated system with pre-installed windows. > I don't think so. DRM is an old lens of understanding the problem from the last generation. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg . The new methods use a softer approach. Thanks for the link.
simonblack 2y ago
Once you have manufacturers start implementing TC, that will really hamper reverse engineering efforts. Imagine the possibilities of capturing the non-Microsoft market be allowing the TC to be turned off, or by not including it. When it comes to Microsoft, there is an old business saying: "Never turn away a paying customer", because you will not only lose this sale, you will lose all future sales too.

9dev 2y ago

It also wouldn’t be Microsoft if they wouldn’t ceaselessly harass those users to upgrade to Windows 11, even if they’re using a non-upgradable laptop that will never see a new mainboard. It’s so braindead, I’m convinced at this point that Windows has been degraded to a mere sales funnel that is to be monetized at any cost.

szundi 2y ago
Exactly. They could just add a check before the ad: is there a tpm2 device there? But no, it is 13 story points, we don’t have time vs some other knife into the back Of our unsuspecting cow (user)

szundi 2y ago

Apple has a very good rate of people using the newest OS, they became envious. … wait what

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
I dunno what the "wait what" is for to be honest, because you have a good point and / or a sore spot for Microsoft; MacOS users (generally speaking) trust Apple, they have a great track record with gradual OS updates and minimal surprise even when they do major overhauls, with minimal or gradual updates to their visual design over the past 24 years (Aqua with OSX, then slowly dropping the skeuomorphic / Frutiger design language for flat design over time.) They're claiming 2020's Big Sur was their biggest visual overhaul, but it was a smooth transition. Compare Microsoft that tried various different visual overhauls in the same period, first with Windows XP (2001) leaning into the Fruitiger asthetic, then Windows Vista and 7 (Aero design), Metro (windows 8, windows mobile) and now Fluent (windows 10 and beyond). While trying to add more monetization via ads and office365 integration. I'm not saying Apple is not guilty of the monetization, they've had three different incarnations of their cloud offerings before iCloud settled things (iirc) and they do promote it within MacOS, but it doesn't come across as cynically as MS's offerings do.

katzinsky 2y ago

They're jealous of the platform Apple has created where they can sell the users rather than sell software to them. This requires cryptographic hardware like the TPM. Obviously it's not going to work because the only advantage Windows had was being the last popular platform that didn't work this way^ but the admins in charge of the decisions probably don't understand this. ^There also used to be compatibility with early y2k apps and familiarity of users from school but both of those have been quickly eroding. EDIT: Out of replies Trapping 20% of tech illiterate users would be a loss considering they currently have upwards of 80%.

almatabata 2y ago
> Obviously it's not going to work because the only advantage Windows had was being the last popular platform that didn't work this way^ but the admins in charge of the decisions probably don't understand this. If they can trap 20% of tech illiterate customers into their garden would that not already count as a win? Now they can extract more money from them than they could before.

synicalx 2y ago

Option 1 is arguably not an option in a lot of people's minds with the EOL date for W10 coming up, and threatening/pushy notifications from MS on all W10 machines telling people to upgrade to W11. Option 2 is a non-starter for a lot of people - can't afford a Mac, would never be able to work out Linux. ChromeOS is an option but if you're going to buy new hardware, why not just go with option 3 and get a new Windows machine. Option 3 is MS's favourite; they shift more unit of their own hardware, failing that they shift more licenses from OEMs, they lock more people into W11, then progressively upsell them stuff from within the OS itself, and finally make more money off of advertising from 3rd parties in the OS itself. I'm also inclined to think that by creating a generational gap with hardware like this, MS is making their own lives easier by only having to test W11 on modern hardware - no legacy users to support. So they make more money, potentially for less effort.