this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
107 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
85805 readers
3329 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Say more about the reason it's move viable please.
TL;DR;
Capitalists gonna capitalise,
Fiscal gain is always going to be the reason behind decisions, even if it doesn't seem like it on the face of it.
Especially microsoft, with it's history.
I'll preface this with, this is just my opinion etc...
I say must, should, has to, etc with the conviction of my opinion, not proof of objective fact.
i have some insight into the subject/industry but nothing i'd be willing to verify with anyone, so make of that what you will.
It's less a specific thing to point to and more of a general "profit driven company is going to make profit driven decisions", even if perceived altruism was deemed the best fiscal decision, the primary goal is still commercial viability.
A full extra year of security updates requires resources.
Unless they are doing something wildly outside the norms of software development, that means development, testing, deployment, hosting, tooling, marketing/PR, support and more.
There's both CapEx and OpEx costs to that kind of endeavour.
For a product of any size that's a non-zero resource cost, for a product the size of windows that's a big number, perhaps not in the grand scheme, but it's a non-trivial amount.
That is historically not the kind of thing that microsoft would do/has done just for the altruistic benefit of it's users.
Feel free to provide examples to the contrary, i'd be pleasantly surprised.
So assuming it's not altruism that drives this decision, the only other conclusion i could come up with was commercial viability/profit/money.
That might be a failure of imagination on my part.
The projected cost of not doing this must outweigh the projected benefit of going through with it.
Be that in goodwill, user/customer retention, PR, straight up sales or something else, there must be a benefit that outweighs the cost of just dropping support.
I could speculate on specifics but it'd mostly be rehashing the thousands of articles on poor decisions (and poor timing) around the whole win 11 rollout and windows in general.
i don't mean this from an old man shouts at cloud viewpoint, i don't particularly care for windows(or microsoft) but I'm not a rabid hater.
Microsoft has some good products that i use regularly, despite their constant and repeated attempts to enshittify all of the end user experiences they can in pursuit of fiscal gain.
That being said, the win 11 rollout has been a shambles on many fronts.