SECURITY, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: WHEN TECH MARKETING CREATES FALSE NEEDS

October 22, 2025 8 min read
Conceptual image of digital divide and AI marketing
When marketing creates false needs: the gap between technological promises and actual user requirements.

This morning, coffee in hand, my mind began dissecting the prevailing technological discourse. Between promises of artificial intelligence and security imperatives, what remains of digital common sense? As a maritime expert, accustomed to field realities, I allow myself a critical reflection on the logic governing our digital tools — and above all, on planned obsolescence disguised as innovation.

APPLE AND THE ABRUPT TRANSITION: AI AS A NEW COMMERCIAL LEVER

When I bought my MacBook Pro M1, I faced a dilemma: take the risk with this new chip developed by Apple, or opt for the security of a MacBook Pro i7 or i9, equipped with Intel processors — an established, reliable, proven brand?

I chose the M1. And today, in hindsight, this choice proves winning: my M1 receives the latest macOS updates, including Apple Intelligence. But those who chose "security" with a MacBook Pro i9 — yet more expensive, more powerful on paper, and sold as a professional machine — find themselves abandoned today. No major updates, no access to Apple Intelligence.

Was the Intel to Apple Silicon transition technically justified? Yes, in part. Apple moved from an x86 architecture (Intel) to ARM (Apple Silicon), a fundamental change that requires a system overhaul. But the abruptness of this transition raises questions.

Apple could have done differently. During the PowerPC to Intel transition, Apple maintained Rosetta for years to ensure progressive compatibility. This time, the cut was swift, too swift. Recent, powerful, and expensive machines (i9 Pro) became obsolete in just a few years.

And then, there's the AI marketing.

Apple sells "Apple Intelligence" as a revolution accessible only on M chips. But let's be clear: it's not as if you had Claude or ChatGPT installed locally on your machine. Apple Intelligence is essentially:

It's intelligent assistance integrated into the user experience, not powerful generative AI. An M1 with 8 GB of RAM cannot run true heavy language models locally. Apple uses the term "Artificial Intelligence" as a sales lever to justify the shift to M chips, when these features remain marginal for 90% of users.

Apple therefore plays on two fronts: an architecturally defensible but commercially abrupt transition, and AI marketing that creates a false sense of urgency.

MICROSOFT AND WINDOWS 11: OBSOLESCENCE WITHOUT TECHNICAL EXCUSE

If Apple at least has the argument of architectural change, Microsoft has no excuse.

Windows 10 and Windows 11 run on the same x86-64 processors. There was no fundamental architectural change. Yet Microsoft decided to stop Windows 10 updates, forcing users to switch to Windows 11 — and therefore, for many, to change machines.

The argument invoked? Security.

But let's be honest: the majority of users have simple digital lives, without sensitive data or access to critical systems. This reminds me of an anecdote: a very modest friend once told me he feared the "digital evil eye." I replied: "You have neither George Clooney's looks nor nuclear plant secrets… who's going to hack you?"

This fear of digital exposure is often exaggerated, fueled by anxiety-inducing discourse that mainly serves to justify purchasing new machines.

Microsoft could have maintained two versions of Windows in parallel. They've already done it! The transition between 32-bit and 64-bit spanned over ten years, with two versions maintained simultaneously, two development teams, and progressive coexistence that allowed users and businesses to adapt. So the argument "it costs too much to maintain two versions" doesn't hold. Microsoft has the resources, experience, and technical capacity to do it. They choose not to.

Why? Because forcing the switch to Windows 11 pushes users to buy new hardware. Microsoft doesn't manufacture hardware, but their ecosystem depends on it. By imposing higher hardware requirements for Windows 11, they fuel the replacement market — benefiting manufacturers (Intel, AMD, OEM builders) and, indirectly, themselves.

THE REAL PROBLEM: IMPOSED OVERPOWERING VS. REAL NEEDS

This is where the system shows its full absurdity.

My current professional computer is a Dell Latitude 7390, 8th generation Intel, released in 2017. This computer is nine years old. And you know what? It runs perfectly. I do my maritime expert work without any problem: detailed technical reports, strength of materials (SOM) calculations, processing hundreds of photos, project management, complex analyses.

If a nine-year-old machine is still performing today, in 2025, it's proof that too much overpowering is being pushed onto the market.

The computing needs of most users haven't exploded. We still do word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, emails, video conferencing. These uses don't require processors etched at 3 nanometers or 32 GB of RAM.

Who really needs this power?

For the rest of us — and that's the vast majority — this race for overpowering is artificial.

The problem isn't technology itself. The problem is that we're being imposed an evolution that doesn't correspond to our real needs.

THE DIVIDE BETWEEN HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE: WHO DECIDES OBSOLESCENCE?

There's a perverse relationship between hardware manufacturers and software publishers.

Processor manufacturers (Intel, AMD, Qualcomm) are in permanent competition to offer more power, finer etching, more cores. But these manufacturers also know one thing: if their hardware will never be supported by an operating system, they won't produce it.

Microsoft and Apple dictate the pace. If Microsoft says "Windows 10 is over," manufacturers stop targeting this segment. If Apple says "no more updates for Intel," resellers stop promoting these machines.

Control is in the hands of software publishers, not chip manufacturers.

So yes, there's real technological competition between Intel, AMD, and now Apple Silicon. But who benefits from this competition? Mainly highly specialized professional segments and gamers. Not the average user.

Microsoft could offer two versions of Windows:

This would keep millions of perfectly functional machines in circulation, reduce electronic waste, and offer an affordable solution for students, small businesses, and developing countries.

But it's not in their immediate commercial interest.

METADATA VS. PERSONAL DATA: DEMYSTIFYING SECURITY FEARS

During a mission in Gibraltar, I had to send dozens of photos of a ship at the end of charter. Gmail didn't allow transmitting everything as attachments. My colleague then said: "It's not like you're sending me nuclear power plant blueprints!" We used an online transfer service, simple and effective.

This anecdote illustrates a widespread confusion: many people think that Internet giants sell their personal data. This is false.

What these companies collect are metadata:

This metadata is used to target advertising. But your vacation photos, your personal documents, your emails? They don't sell them.

Understanding this nuance is crucial. It allows better assessment of real risks and adaptation of practices accordingly. Security is not blind paranoia, it's proportionate management of real risks.

For the average user, good antivirus software, basic digital hygiene (strong passwords, vigilance about suspicious emails), and common sense are largely sufficient.

THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: WHEN MARKETING MEETS FIELD REALITIES

In developing countries, the technological reality is quite different:

Yet machines capable of operating without cloud — powerful, autonomous — are sold at high prices. The paradox is cruel: those who really need local power can't afford it, while those who can afford it already benefit from smooth connection and don't really need it.

Tech marketing thus creates a double exclusion: technological first, then economic.

Manufacturers could produce less powerful, less expensive machines, adapted to the real needs of these markets. But as long as Microsoft or Apple don't offer software support for these configurations, these machines have no commercial interest.

It's a vicious circle whose first victims are the populations who would most need affordable access to technology.

ALTERNATIVES EXIST: LET'S STOP SUBMITTING TO THE RENEWAL DIKTAT

What if we stopped blindly following this race for renewal? Concrete, accessible, and performing solutions exist.

Linux: Reviving "Obsolete" Machines

Linux distributions like Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Fedora, or Pop!_OS offer lightweight, secure, and free operating systems. They give a second life to machines considered obsolete by manufacturers, while offering:

Open source is not a second-choice solution. It's a credible, sustainable, and ethical alternative.

Free Cloud: Offloading Power Without Investing in Expensive Hardware

Google Workspace, and other services offer remarkable free solutions. With a simple Gmail address, you access:

Unlike giants who push you to buy expensive hardware, these services allow you to work effectively even with a modest machine, as long as you have a decent Internet connection. Certainly, they offer paid versions with more features, but they don't force you to pay to access the essentials.

This is a fundamental difference from the "buy new hardware or you're excluded" model.

Refurbished Machines: Performance, Accessibility, and Ecology

The refurbished market offers perfectly functional computers at a fraction of the price of new ones. For the majority of professional and personal uses, these machines are largely sufficient. They also contribute to reducing electronic waste, a major environmental issue.

RETHINKING OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH TECHNOLOGY

It's time to change paradigms. Security and power should not be marketing imperatives, but tools adapted to each reality, each context, each need.

Let's ask ourselves the right questions:

It's not the machine that makes the expert, it's the use made of it. It's not power that guarantees security, but the relevance of choices. And it's not AI integrated into the system that makes the difference, but the ability to think, structure, and transmit.

Technology must be a tool for emancipation, not a mechanism of perpetual exclusion. It's our responsibility, as professionals and informed users, to question these logics and share our experiences to demystify these false urgencies.

It's time to exit marketing dogmas and think of technology as a tool serving human realities — not as an imposed race toward the latest model.

Back to Technical Articles