I think this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation. On the one hand, the user definitely thinks it's in their best interest to be in control of their software. On the other hand, history has shown that the average user doesn't make good decisions when it comes to said software. Microsoft will catch the blame for the insecure operating system, or they'll catch the blame for forcing users to update their software.

I'm no Microsoft fan, but I really do believe they did the less-wrong thing in this case.

The forced upgrade would be less of a problem if Win10 didn't spy so much, or show ads in the start menu.

It would still be a problem, but less so.

All of their competitors are doing it, and offering arguably compelling experiences based on that data.

That said, they should probably treat personal information sharing like they treat the modification of system settings. Notify the user that an app or service wants to share info, and get their permission to proceed.

With the GDPR stuff happening recently, I wouldn't be surprised if a future version of Windows 10 had a feature like this.

While not specifically caused by Microsoft, here's one of my prior horror stories on forced updates: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11985904

The replies are even better.

TL;DR - "Who cares if we rebooted the emergency phone system, who calls 911 at 3 AM anyway?"

While I have my share of horror stories with WinX malware (if it installs even despite an explicit refusal, it doesn't deserve a more charitable title), running critical systems (literal life support?!) on a desktop OS is irresponsible bordering on criminal, IMNSHO. Even MSFT has embedded and server OS lines for that.

If you knew the sheer scope and extent of what the US DoD runs on desktop Windows, you'd have a heart attack.

"They too" doesn't make it any more responsible ;o)