Ok, so the theory is that Microsoft is after the revenue from Windows 11 licenses? And the way they're achieving this is by forcing people who want to upgrade from Windows 10 to buy a new machine rather than install Windows 11 on their existing machines? If that was the motivation, there's a far more direct option available. Just charge for the upgrade.
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.
> If that was the motivation, there's a far more direct option available. Just charge for the 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.
Sure, let's say that's true. The obvious implication is that these users actually don't care about whether they're running Windows 11 or not, and thus the Windows 11 TPM requirement is utterly irrelevant in their decision to buy a new computer.
I don't see how this supports the theory that this is all about revenue from Windows OEM licenses from forced hardware upgrades.
The theory, as I understand it, is that the wider ecosystem of OEMs is better at selling new hardware than Microsoft alone is at selling Windows upgrades. The users don't care what makes new hardware "new hardware", just that a dozen different companies are telling them that "new hardware" is exciting to buy for the holidays and "more secure" and "better". The TPM requirement on paper is an easy shibboleth for "more secure", so an easy thing to sell through the multi-channel telephone game of OEMs to ad companies to retail stores to mainstream zeitgeist. They don't have to just take Microsoft's word that Windows 11 is "better", they have "word on the street" and their pal who works "Geek Squad" at Best Buy and all those HP commercials on TV telling them they need a new Windows 11 machine for "more secure" hardware.
(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.)
> Sure, let's say that's true. The obvious implication is that these users actually don't care about whether they're running Windows 11 or not, and thus the Windows 11 TPM requirement is utterly irrelevant in their decision to buy a new computer.
> 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"
Good grief. The GP was the one claiming that corporate customers don't like doing in-place major OS upgrades. I'm just accepting that assertion for the sake of argument, because it seems obvious that it will not have the effect that the GP claims.
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?
