The plaintiff says that Microsoft’s tactic of “forced obsolescence” is an “attempt to monopolize the generative AI market.”
Case file: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/klein-v-microsoft-san-diego-complaint.pdf
The plaintiff says that Microsoft’s tactic of “forced obsolescence” is an “attempt to monopolize the generative AI market.”
Case file: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/klein-v-microsoft-san-diego-complaint.pdf
Yes. Tech companies say a lot of things at points in time but having personally spent 3 decades in the industry, the one thing you can rely on is that they will always chase the money. If it means breaking old promises they will do that in a heartbeat and use marketing to spin it as something great for users.
Problem is saying shit like that has consequences.
They kind of have done it though, even now I can upgrade a 10 computer to 11 IF it has the hardware. So from a license level it’s effectively what they promised, it’s the hardware reqs that are the problem. If they left the name the same we could be sitting at the same issue with the latest “10 Forever” updates being blocked by hardware requirements.
But that’s just it. There’s no reason for the extra hardware requirements they added to 11 other than to force a bunch of users onto new computers, on top of the fact that they’re making it more and more difficult to use Windows without the Internet.
Why are we defending their decisions when all they do is take from us?
I’m not “defending” shit. But there are holes in the argument when coming from this direction. If we want to win, we have to have a concrete argument.
That’s not continuous updates.
Upgrade != Update
deleted by creator