Microsoft doesn't sell hardware. Why would they be incentivized to make you buy new hardware? Unless you're alleging that their hardware partners pushed for it, in which case there would likely be logs of communications that are pretty illegal.
The passkey protocol (i.e. webauthn) has an "attestation object" field which organizations like Microsoft can use to pass extra details about the authenticated users to the authenticating service. Which details will likely depend on that service's relationship with Microsoft. Unlike most channels between these parties, it's expected to be secured via TPM thereby excluding others (e.g. the user, or any pesky researchers) from the conversation.
It's pretty obvious from the recent design choices re: Windows that Microsoft is keen on monetizing user data--and who, in that business, wouldn't like a way to do it exclusively? i.e. to control a channel which neither the user nor your competitors can tamper with.
So they'd be incentivized to make you buy new hardware because new hardware allows them to bind your advertiser id to actual identity much more closely than is possible without that hardware (e.g. via cookies and IP addresses). The sale of details about your actual identity to organizations who only know you by your advertiser id is big business. The TPM helps them protect that business against competitors who don't have such low-level control over your device (Google, Meta, etc).
It's in their best interests to have everyone using the "latest and greatest" for those features that weren't present (at least to the same extent) in prior versions.
I suspect Microsoft has numbers which suggest people rarely upgrade their OSes anymore; they're more likely to upgrade their hardware. Enthusiasts still will do whatever but these changes aren't targeting or caring about enthusiasts.
Not necessarily. I'd bet that the fraction of $ microsoft makes from selling windows licenses _retail_ is a rounding error away from zero compared to what they get selling bulk/volume licenses to corporate / OEM.
It's in microsoft's interest to make sure that dell/hp/lenovo ... etc have reasons to keep buying licenses to put on the new computers they're selling.
I suspect that TPM is about making the PC less open than it traditionally has been. For the majority of people on this site, that's going to cause a deathly-allergic reaction. For the majority of the population, there's some security advantages to having windows manage device security from POST.
Corporate customers already have a VLK which will cover Windows 11 [Pro/Enterprise]. The hardware is the only cost for VLK customers -- Windows licensing is already covered under the existing Enterprise Agreement. EAs often have current version and current version - 1 covered, thus a VLK will entitle one to both Windows 10 and 11 as of today.
It would be odd to think that corporate customers haven't been using BitLocker w/ TPM since at least Windows 7, if not Vista. FDE has been a Corporate Security Checkmark(TM) since it became available.
> I suspect that TPM is about making the PC less open than it traditionally has been.
By traditionally, do you mean prior to 2006 as that is when we first saw and started using TPMs?
Anyways Microsoft was clearly very irritated when everyone wanted to stick with Windows 7, perceiving that Windows 8 was worse in every way, and that Windows 10 wasn't a significant enough upgrade to justify the effort especially considering all the added telemetry they added to the product.
It's very reasonable, given this, that they would seek to force the upgrade cycle to occur where it clearly otherwise might not.
How is restricting which machines can run Windows 11 "forcing an upgrade cycle" on the software? It's clearly doing the opposite, by making Windows 11 upgrades less likely.
The real motivation people have for upgrading to Windows 11 is Windows 10 going out of support. And the EOL date is totally orthogonal to the TPM requirement.
They're also buying new hardware which benefits the PC maker. It's a mutually beneficial relationship that forces the user to both buy the software again, and buy new hardware. (You do pay for Windows when you buy a PC, it's a cost the manufacturer absorbs. You can often receive a discount when you order a new PC by not including Windows with it.)
I've only ever seen one piece of x86 hardware that was sold with or without Windows in my lifetime. It was $15 cheaper at the time to buy the Windows version and install Ubuntu myself.
For this theory to work, it would have to be that there's a significant population that a) wants to run Windows 11 instead of Windows 10; b) will buy a new computer to do that; c) would not pay the price of an OEM license for a version upgrade.
That's a far more direct option, which also largely doesn't work. Corporate IT doesn't like doing in-place major OS upgrades. Consumers just plain won't, unless it's free and easy.
I don't see how this supports the theory that this is all about revenue from Windows OEM licenses from forced hardware upgrades.
what on earth makes you think that "what the users actually don't [or do care about]" has any affect on what corporate IT does with their users' devices?
do you think corporate IT is going to say "oh ok" when a user says "i don't want to upgrade to Windows 11 or a laptop that has TPM"
c'mon. lol.
But it seems that you're disagreeing with the GP. So let's say for the sake of argument that you're right about that. Just what is your theory for how the Windows 11 TPM requirement is leading to more Windows licensing revenue?
(I think it is gross that this is how Microsoft and the PC OEMs think is the best way to increase revenue together, but I think there's enough evidence that this theory is relatively accurate portrait of one of the factors for why Windows 11 is the way that it is.)
About 9.5% ($23.244 billion) was from Windows "including Windows OEM licensing and other non-volume licensing of the Windows operating system; Windows Commercial, comprising volume licensing of the Windows operating system, Windows cloud services, and other Windows commercial offerings; patent licensing; and Windows Internet of Things."
Compared to FY 2023, devices revenue decreased 15% and Windows revenue increased 8%.
- Hardware guys make cool new hardware that incentivizes PC sales.
- Windows guys add driver and OS support in a timely manner so apps can utilize it easily.
And sometimes the other way around:
- Windows guys add some cool new feature that incentivizes PC sales.
- Hardware guys drive down component costs to compensate for the OS getting bigger and slower.
The problem for the PC industry is that in the last ~15 years or so this virtuous circle has broken down. Outside of Apple the hardware guys stopped coming up with cool new features that would shift units outside of gaming GPU upgrades, and gaming has anyway been dominated by consoles for a long time exactly because they have hardware DRM that works so game developers prefer it (also gamers when they want multiplayer without wallhackers). Intel struggled and AMD didn't really pick up the slack in any major way. Even Apple has struggled here - other than their proprietary CPU designs and rolling back some Ive-isms by adding more ports again, a modern MacBook isn't substantially different than the models they were selling years ago.
So that leaves the software guys to drive sales. Unfortunately for the PC OEMs Microsoft has well and truly run out of steam here. Their best people all left the Windows team years ago, and Windows isn't even a top level division anymore, being weirdly split between the Office and Azure teams.
A big part of the stagnation is driven by the web. Nobody writes Windows apps anymore except games, so there's no progress to be had by adding new Windows APIs outside of DirectX. Meanwhile the web guys are shooting the PC industry in the face with a policy of never adding features unless it's supported on every piece of hardware from every vendor, more or less, which makes competitive differentiation impossible, so nobody even tries anymore. There is no web equivalent of a driver since the Netscape plugin API was killed. They also move incredibly slowly due to the desire to sandbox everything. In the 90s the success of Windows was driven by some wizard-level hackers but as PC hardware matured clever tricks stopped being an important differentiator, and monopoly profits made them fat and lazy. It's clear that Nadella has zero confidence in the Windows org(s) ability to execute, hence why in the post-Ballmer years the rest of Microsoft has systematically divorced itself from them.
So - no hardware innovation thanks to the web, no major CPU upgrades thanks to Intel/AMD, no software innovation thanks to Microsoft. The PC industry is stagnant and desperate. What have they got left? Well, they have TPMs (really, TPM v2 because TPM v1 was kinda botched). And Windows doesn't really need it, but if Microsoft ties Windows upgrades to TPMv2 they can use the treadmill of security/support expiring on Win10 to drive one last round of hardware replacements that can give the industry an injection of revenue that can then maybe be spent on finding new hardware features to drive upgrades, seeing as Microsoft can no longer do it.
There's nothing illegal in any of this - nobody is price setting and it's not much different to prior eras when new Windows versions required more RAM.
The size of market share is irrelevant, doesn't change the hard fact that Microsoft does indeed produce hardware.