Microsoft has been adamant about cutting off users when a version of Windows exhausts its 10-year support lifespan.
It was rather a PR action of MS in an attempt to put them in a favorable light. Tricking users into upgrades to their newest OS which one has no control over did once again put the company in a shady light. This PR action was meant to appease its angry and disillusioned customers - "hey we carry about all of you, your safety is important to us"
Cynics have long portrayed that as strong-arming customers into upgrading for Microsoft's financial benefit."
Why "cynics" to begin with?
Besides, it is not only for the financial benefit of Microsoft but the whole soft- and hardware industry.
Even those IT experts and product managers are among the beneficiaries, including "Computerworld" due to sponsorship.
So one should take such articles with a pinch of salt.
Meanwhile, the company typically boasts that the newer version of Windows is better, faster, and most important, more secure
Better? Instead of self-flattery why not let the user to decide himself what's better for him.
Faster? It's the underlying hardware that makes it faster not the OS itself.
More secure? Ironically, the SMB exploit (WannaCry) didn't work on XP, in contrast to Win7 and Win10.
So it was a symbolic patch for XP giving the false impression that it is was equally exposed as newest MS operating systems were.