In October this year, Microsoft officially announced the end of support for Windows 10. This means that users will no longer receive security updates or official support. While the lifecycle end of an operating system is generally considered a natural occurrence in the software ecosystem, this move raises significant questions.
The core issue is the TPM 2.0 (Trusted Platform Module) requirement. Installing Windows 11 mandates this hardware security chip. As a result, users with older PCs without TPM 2.0 are forced to buy new hardware to access the latest operating system. This goes beyond a simple software upgrade—millions of old PCs are effectively turned into electronic waste.
Although this decision is framed as technological progress, it effectively transfers forced costs and environmental destruction onto consumers. Even though older PCs could still function adequately, users are compelled to purchase new devices simply because of a single hardware requirement—a move that cannot be considered reasonable.
Moreover, who will be responsible for any security breaches that occur after forced upgrades to Windows 11? Will Microsoft provide compensation?
The environmental cost of this decision is particularly severe. Globally, IT waste reaches tens of millions of tons annually, generating toxic emissions and wasting resources. The ultimate burden of hazardous materials disproportionately falls on society’s most vulnerable groups.
Had Microsoft adopted a more progressive approach—for example, offering limited Windows 11 functionality on TPM 2.0–lacking PCs, or providing virtualization and security update alternatives—it would have protected vulnerable users and reduced social and environmental costs.
This decision also illustrates how technology companies can limit consumer choice to control revenue and the technological ecosystem. Forced hardware replacement under the guise of “innovation” inherently strips consumer rights and imposes social costs. In an era where smartphones and tablets are ubiquitous, such mandatory measures are exaggerated actions. Forcing everyone to adhere to enterprise-level Windows security standards is unjust.
Ultimately, the end of Windows 10 support and the TPM requirement for Windows 11 go beyond simple OS lifecycle management. They warrant criticism from environmental, economic, and consumer rights perspectives. Technological advancement does not need to come with coercion. If Microsoft adopts more flexible and creative solutions now, both the environment and consumers could benefit.
Microsoft’s technological innovation does not have to perpetually dictate users’ choices or generate e-waste. We hope for a forward-thinking approach that protects the socially vulnerable while embracing true innovation.