Amazon has confirmed it will end support for Kindle devices released in 2012 or earlier from May 2026, a move that highlights how even simple, long-lasting technology is increasingly tied to ongoing platform support. It is also a useful reminder for organisations reviewing Managed IT Services.

How Amazon’s Kindle Support Changes Affect Device Lifecycle Planning

Amazon has announced that, from 20 May 2026, affected Kindle devices will no longer be able to access the Kindle Store. This means users will not be able to purchase, download, or borrow new books directly on those devices.

The list includes some of Amazon’s earliest and most widely used models, such as the original Kindle, Kindle Keyboard, Kindle Touch, and the first-generation Kindle Paperwhite.

Importantly, these devices will not stop working altogether. Users will still be able to read books that are already downloaded, and in some cases manually transfer files via USB. However, once a device is deregistered or reset, it cannot be reconnected to an Amazon account.

In practical terms, that turns these devices into static, offline readers rather than fully connected products.

Why Amazon Is Ending Support for Older Kindle Devices

Amazon says both the hardware and the software environment for devices that are between 14 and 18 years old have moved on, hence the reason for ending support. That kind of change can create planning issues for IT Support for SMEs.

Also, for Amazon, maintaining compatibility with older systems adds cost and complexity, particularly as newer services, features, and security requirements evolve. At some point, supporting legacy devices becomes less viable than focusing on current platforms. This is a fairly familiar pattern across the technology sector, and companies regularly phase out support for older products as part of normal lifecycle management.

However, what makes this case more noticeable is the nature of the Kindle itself. Unlike smartphones or laptops, e-readers have relatively simple functionality and tend to remain usable for much longer. As many disgruntled long-term users have been quick to point out on social media after hearing the news, many of the affected devices are still in full working order.

Why Device Support Matters in Managed IT Services

This situation highlights an important distinction that is becoming more relevant across all types of technology, i.e., the difference between a device that works and a device that is supported. It also underlines why Cyber Security Services and lifecycle planning often go hand in hand.

From a hardware perspective, these Kindles still function as intended. From a platform perspective, they are being disconnected from the services that give them their full value.

This means that, in effect, the usefulness of the device is no longer determined solely by its physical condition, but by its ability to connect to Amazon’s ecosystem.

This reflects a broader change in how technology products are designed and monetised. Devices are increasingly just one part of a wider service model, where ongoing access, updates, and integration are essential to the overall experience.

The Commercial Logic Behind Legacy Technology Support

There is also a clear commercial logic behind Amazon’s decision. Ending support quite simply reduces the cost of maintaining older systems and simplifies Amazon’s technology stack.

It also encourages users to move to newer devices, where Amazon can offer updated features, improved performance, and potentially new revenue opportunities. The company has already indicated it will offer discounts to affected users to support that transition.

This does not necessarily mean that the decision is purely about driving sales, but it does show how lifecycle management and commercial incentives are closely linked.

From Amazon’s perspective, continuing to support ageing devices indefinitely is difficult to justify when the majority of users have already moved on to newer models.

The E-Waste Impact of Unsupported Technology

Besides the issue that many users are still happy with their old Kindles, one other main criticism of the decision is its potential environmental impact. Many of the affected devices are still usable, and limiting their functionality raises concerns about creating more unnecessary electronic waste.

This is part of a wider issue across the industry. As software support is withdrawn, otherwise functional devices can become less useful or effectively obsolete, even if the hardware remains intact.

While Amazon’s move does not render these Kindles completely unusable, it does reduce their practical value, which may lead some users to replace them sooner than they otherwise would have done.

This tension between technological progress and sustainability is unlikely to go away, particularly as more devices become dependent on cloud-based services and ongoing updates.

What Amazon’s Kindle Support Decision Means for Your Business

For UK businesses, the immediate impact of this decision may be limited, but the underlying message is important.

Technology investments are no longer just about buying hardware. They are about buying into an ecosystem that has its own lifecycle, dependencies, and constraints.

Even devices that appear simple and stable can be affected by changes at the platform level. This creates a form of “soft obsolescence”, where products continue to function but lose key capabilities over time.

In practical terms, this means businesses need to think more carefully about lifecycle planning. That includes understanding how long products are likely to be supported, what happens when that support ends, and how easily systems can be replaced or migrated.

It also reinforces the importance of avoiding unnecessary dependency on a single provider where possible, particularly for critical systems or data access.

In short, this is not just about older Kindles. It is a reminder that in a service-driven technology landscape, control increasingly sits with the platform, not the device.

Microsoft’s own terms of use state that Copilot is “for entertainment purposes only”, raising important questions about how AI tools are really meant to be used in business.

What The Terms Say

Buried within Microsoft’s Copilot terms is a clear warning that: “Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.”

On the surface, this looks like standard legal language. However, some commentators have recently highlighted how this appears to sit in direct contrast to how Copilot is being positioned. For example, Microsoft is actively embedding it across Windows, Microsoft 365, and enterprise workflows, and presenting Copilot as a productivity tool for everything from writing and coding to data analysis and decision support.

Why The Disclaimer?

At its core, the disclaimer appears to be about risk management by Microsoft. Generative AI systems are probabilistic, meaning they generate responses based on patterns rather than verified facts. As a result, they can produce outputs that are plausible but incorrect, incomplete, or misleading.

This is commonly referred to as “hallucination”, and it remains a largely unresolved issue across all major AI models. Therefore, by explicitly stating that Copilot should not be relied upon for important advice, Microsoft is effectively limiting its liability if something goes wrong.

There is, however, also a second layer to this. The terms make clear that users are responsible for how they use Copilot and any consequences that follow. In practical terms, that shifts accountability away from Microsoft and onto the individual or organisation using the tool.

Not Just Microsoft

It should be noted here that this kind of disclaimer is not unique to Microsoft. OpenAI, Google, and xAI all include similar warnings in their own terms, reflecting a broader industry position that AI outputs are assistive, not authoritative.

The Gap Between Legal Position And Real-World Use

The challenge here is that this legal framing may not match how AI is actually being used. In many organisations, tools like Copilot are already being integrated into day-to-day workflows. Employees are using them to draft emails, summarise documents, generate code, and in some cases support decision-making processes.

Over time, this creates a degree of reliance, even if it is unofficial. The more useful and embedded the tool becomes, the more likely users are to trust its outputs without fully verifying them.

This is where the concept of automation bias becomes important. People tend to favour outputs generated by machines, particularly when those outputs are well-presented and appear confident. AI amplifies this effect because it produces responses that read as coherent and authoritative, even when they are not.

The result is a subtle but growing risk. Not that AI will fail completely, but that it will be trusted just enough to introduce errors into business processes.

What Does This Say About AI Maturity?

The wording in Microsoft’s terms could be said to highlight something more fundamental about the current state of AI.

Despite rapid advances in capability, these systems are clearly not yet reliable enough to be treated as independent decision-makers. They are basically tools that can assist, accelerate, and enhance work, but they still require oversight, validation, and context from human users. The fact that vendors are explicitly stating this in their legal terms suggests that the industry itself recognises the gap between capability and dependability.

This also reflects ongoing uncertainty around regulation, copyright, and accountability. For example, if an AI system generates incorrect advice, infringes intellectual property, or contributes to a business decision that causes loss, it is still not fully clear where responsibility sits.

Until those questions are resolved, vendors are likely to continue protecting themselves through broad disclaimers like this.

Why The Language May Change

Microsoft has already indicated that this wording may be updated, describing it as “legacy language” that does not fully reflect how Copilot is used today.

This suggests the company is aware of the contradiction and may move towards a more nuanced position. However, any changes are likely to be carefully balanced.

On one hand, Microsoft wants Copilot to be seen as a core productivity tool. On the other, it still needs to manage the legal and operational risks that come with deploying AI at scale.

That balancing act is not going away. If anything, it will become more pronounced as AI tools become more capable and more deeply integrated into business systems.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For UK businesses, the key takeaway is not that Copilot or similar tools should not be used. It is that they need to be used with a clear understanding of their limitations.

AI should be treated as a support layer, not a source of truth. Outputs should be checked, particularly where they influence decisions, customer communications, or technical implementations.

It also reinforces the need for internal controls. Clear guidelines on how AI can be used, where human review is required, and how outputs are validated are becoming essential.

There is also a broader point about responsibility here. Vendors are making it clear that the risk sits with the user, which means that businesses need to take ownership of how these tools are deployed and managed.

The key takeaway here is that AI may be marketed as a productivity solution, but it is still governed by uncertainty. Understanding that gap is what will determine whether it adds value or introduces risk.

A “BrowserGate” report claims LinkedIn scans users’ browsers for thousands of extensions and collects device data without clear disclosure.

Researchers say LinkedIn runs a hidden script that checks for over 6,000 extensions and gathers around 48 device attributes, creating a fingerprint linked to user activity. The scanning behaviour itself has been independently verified.

LinkedIn disputes the claims, saying the detection is used to identify extensions that breach its terms, particularly scraping tools, and that it does not use the data to infer sensitive information.

Concern centres on the scale and scope of the data collected, including tools linked to competitors and potential insights into user behaviour. There are also questions about transparency, given the lack of clear disclosure in its privacy policy.

For businesses, the advice is to review browser use, limit extensions, and strengthen endpoint controls to reduce exposure of corporate activity.

A fusion energy startup is developing a new class of nuclear battery that could help solve one of the biggest challenges in clean energy, turning radiation directly into electricity rather than wasting it as heat.

What Avalanche Energy Is Building

Avalanche Energy, a US-based fusion startup, has been awarded a $5.2 million contract from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop compact “nuclear batteries” using advanced radiovoltaic technology.

These devices generate electricity by converting energy from radioactive decay, specifically alpha particles, into electrical power using semiconductor materials. The concept is similar to solar panels, but instead of converting sunlight, they convert radiation directly into electricity.

According to the company, the goal is to produce systems capable of delivering more than 10 watts per kilogram, enough to power a laptop-class device for months from a unit weighing only a few kilograms.

This is a significant step forward compared to traditional radioisotope batteries, which have historically been reliable but very low power.

Why This Matters For Fusion Energy

While the immediate application is compact power systems, the real significance lies in how this technology could support the future of fusion energy.

Fusion reactions generate enormous amounts of energy, but capturing that energy efficiently has proved difficult. Most approaches still rely on heating water and driving turbines, which introduces inefficiencies and limits overall output.

Avalanche’s approach focuses on direct energy conversion, capturing the energy of charged particles before it is lost as heat.

As the company explains, “The direct energy conversion technologies we’re developing under Rads to Watts will be essential for extracting power from fusion reactions efficiently.”

This matters because improving energy capture is one of the key barriers to making fusion commercially viable. Even if a reactor produces more energy than it consumes, that energy still needs to be converted into usable electricity in a practical and efficient way.

A Step Towards Portable, Low-Carbon Power

Beyond fusion, these nuclear batteries could offer a new type of long-duration, low-maintenance power source.

Unlike conventional batteries, they don’t need recharging in the traditional sense. Instead, they produce a steady flow of electricity over extended periods, making them suitable for environments where access to power is limited or unreliable.

DARPA’s interest reflects this potential. The programme is focused on systems that can operate in extreme environments, including space, remote locations, and infrastructure where logistics make refuelling difficult.

In terms of this broader ambition, Avalanche says: “We’re building the capabilities today that will enable tomorrow’s fusion systems to deliver reliable, portable energy for defence, space, and commercial applications.”

In sustainability terms, this could point to a future where certain applications currently dependent on diesel generators or frequent battery replacement could move to cleaner, longer-lasting alternatives.

How This Fits Into The Wider Industry

It should be noted here that Avalanche is not alone in exploring alternative ways to generate long-duration power from nuclear processes.

Companies such as US-based Zeno Power are developing radioisotope power systems designed for remote infrastructure, including maritime and Arctic applications. Zeno focuses on long-life nuclear batteries that can operate for years without maintenance.

Also, organisations like NASA and the US Department of Energy have long used radioisotope thermoelectric generators in space missions, including the Perseverance and Curiosity Mars rovers, demonstrating the reliability of nuclear-based power systems over decades.

In the private sector, firms such as Kronos Advanced Technologies and Arkenlight are also researching next-generation radiovoltaic and betavoltaic systems aimed at improving efficiency and power density.

What makes Avalanche’s approach distinct is its direct link to fusion. For example, rather than treating nuclear batteries as a standalone product, it is using them as a stepping stone towards solving a core technical challenge in fusion energy itself.

This reflects a broader trend in the industry, where companies are focusing on specific bottlenecks such as materials, energy capture, and system design, rather than attempting to solve fusion as a single problem.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

For businesses, this development is less about immediate adoption and more about understanding where energy technology is heading.

The key takeaway is that the future of clean energy is not just about generation, it is about efficiency, portability, and reliability. Technologies that can deliver consistent, low-carbon power in difficult environments will open up new operational possibilities.

In the shorter term, this kind of innovation signals a move towards more resilient energy systems. Businesses operating in remote locations, critical infrastructure, or energy-intensive sectors may benefit from future solutions that reduce reliance on traditional fuel supply chains.

It also highlights the pace at which energy innovation is moving. Fusion is often seen as a distant goal, but the supporting technologies being developed today, including advanced materials and direct energy conversion systems, are already shaping the path towards it.

While nuclear batteries may not be powering offices or factories tomorrow, they represent a step towards a more flexible, sustainable energy landscape where power can be generated and used far more efficiently than it is today.

Microsoft’s new ‘Cowork’ feature in Copilot lets you assign tasks by simply describing the outcome, with Copilot creating a plan, using your Microsoft 365 data, and carrying out tasks across apps in the background while keeping you in control at every step.

[Note – To Watch This Video without glitches/interruptions, It may be best to download it first]

Important files are often left in the Downloads folder and never backed up, so moving them to a synced or backed-up location helps prevent accidental data loss if your device fails or is lost.

Why This Matters

The Downloads folder is one of the most commonly used locations for saving files, especially when opening email attachments or downloading documents from the web.

However, it is often not included in automatic backup or cloud sync settings.

This means files stored there may only exist on one device.

If that device is lost, damaged or replaced, anything stored only in Downloads could be permanently lost.

How To Check Your Downloads Folder In Windows

1. Open File Explorer.
2. Click on Downloads in the left-hand menu.
3. Review the files stored there.

Look for anything important that should be kept long term.

What To Do Next

• Move important files to Documents, Desktop or another backed-up folder.
• Or save them directly into OneDrive or your company’s shared storage.

If your organisation uses OneDrive folder backup, ensure key folders are being synced properly.

What To Watch For

• Files in Downloads are often temporary by nature.
• Important documents can easily be forgotten there.
• Backups and sync tools may not include this folder by default.

A Practical Approach

Take a minute to check your Downloads folder now.

Moving important files into a backed-up location is a simple habit that can prevent unnecessary data loss and ensure your work is properly protected.