Even if some technology gets different with time, software always permits to give support without limitations. Why? That's because the code is simply that, it's made for a purpose. It can be built upon, with cases and solutions. With a well-conceived policy there's no necessity of forcing users to throw their machines, peripherals or in general electronic devices that depend on drivers and an operating system to work.
For a good example of what's causing a critical amount of wasted electronic devices it appears, near in time, the decision of discontinuing Windows XP. From Microsoft:
In the past 12 years you’ve probably gotten a new phone, maybe a new TV, and possibly even a new car. Maybe it’s time for a new PC too [...].
Although today it's really different from those ages where a computer was lacking important features like processor speed, memory or hard drive. Millions of users have with a XP based machine all they need because it has enough resources for doing their work, professional, media or whatever. Throwing away support means that other software companies will no longer focus XP, finally forcing users to buy that "new PC" and say goodbye to every single peripheral.
There are sound cards, printers, scanners, measuring equipment very heavy and expensive. With the decision from a group of individuals this will end in mountains of e-waste somewhere. That's what this policy causes... does the contemporary society allow it?
The software sector usually focus this technique to increase sales, moving ahead without looking back. It's also unethical the aspect of the licenses, as the software installation is more or less "at your own risk" if some fault arises, weird ones included. No warranty, the possibility of a very precarious support that doesn't solve problems or does it after months of problems, and finally the door that makes noise blocking the path as with the Windows XP case.
This kind of trouble and lamentable consequences to the environment as the most important factor but also to the personal life and possibilities, should be discussed from a legislative point of view. It's clear that different companies do not hesitate in directly causing critical amounts of waste if with that move they have more probabilities of selling their newer products.
As a rule, the wrong actions aren't by far inexorable as other methodologies could be proposed with great winds to the capitalistic side of the market. In fact, to move ahead without thinking in the past could create (and should) migrations toward open source based operating systems or other options that always build drivers adding more features but without breaking backward compatibility.
Let's repeat this: you could expect that a well-designed operating system and inherent hardware drivers should run any kind of device, where production age is not an issue for compatibility.
It's simply a bad joke trying to run a Windows 95 printer in Windows 8, or maybe in the next operating system. Developers usually know that they must create workarounds for getting inclusive applications working! The same for microchips, memory or card slots, mother boards, connectors (well, the USB is among the interesting exceptions until now), ..., so a new technology conceived by a field is the best indication of massive quantities of obsolescence and with it, a great volume of resources lost. Furthermore, multiple resources that today are a great production of contamination toward the factors that interact with the human life (and not only) causing instability toward health by entering in the water cycle, atmosphere or whatever convergence route.
The planning seems awful in general.
Some people do believe in other life and for that, perhaps do not care about what's happening, even following "evil paths" toward themselves and the place where they live. But for sure the only one that we can technically demonstrate is what's in front of your eyes. This is a good reason to argue about causes of toxicity in the environment, today and for new generations; creating, establish control.