Like, I have a 'Copilot' button prominently displayed in my New Outlook on MacOS (the only platform where the app-with-that-designation is sort-of usable), and it's a dropdown menu, and it has... zero items when expanded.
I asked my 'Microsoft 365 Bing Chat AI Bot Powered By ChatGPT<tm>' about that, and it wasn't able to tell me how to make that button actually do something, ending the conversation with "yeah, that's sort-of a tease, isn't it?"...
Oh, well, and I actually also have a dedicated Copilot button on my new Lenovo laptop powered-by-Windows-11. And, guess what, it does exactly nothing! I can elect to either assign this button to 'Search', which opens a WebView2 to bing.com (ehhm, yeah, sure, thanks!) or to 'Custom', in which case it informs me that 'nothing' meets the hardware requirements to actually enable that.
So, my question to anyone in the Microsoft C-suite: have you ever tried to, like, actually use, like anything that you're selling? Because if you would have, the failings would have been obvious, right? Right??
Even in Visual Studio Enterprise, their flagship developer product, the GPT integration mostly just destroys code regardless of model output. I truly cannot fathom how any of that made it past even a cursory review. Or how that situation would last for over 6 months, but, yet, here we are.
And, again, it's fine with me: I'll just use Claude Code, but if I were a Microsoft VP-or-above, the lack of execution would sort-of, well concern me? But maybe I'm just focused on the wrong things. I mean, Cloudflare brought down, like, half the Internet twice in the past two weeks, and they're still a tech darling, so possibly incompetence is the new hotness now?
The most successful AI companies (OpenAI, Anthropic, Cursor) are all dogfooding their products as far as I can tell, and I don't really see any other reliable way to make sure the AI feature you ship actually works.
Since I have a full Copilot license at my corporate day gig, I figured I would try using Copilot for a basic static site. Nothing too hard, and something that's been handled easily with the other LLM's.
The prompt was pretty basic just to get something to start working with. "Build a four page template. With a home or index page, two pages of content and a contact page with a responsive slide out menu from the left hand side of the page."
It ran and put everything in a folder. I open the home page and everything was broken. I opened the files in VS Code and saw this:
<ul class="drawer__list">
<li>index.htmlHome</a></li>
<li>services.htmlServices</a></li>
<li><a class="nav-linkeduling</a></li>
<li>contact.htmlContact</a></li>
</ul>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
<title>Home · Acme Web</title>
<meta name="description" content="Accessible, responsive starter template with a slide-out menu."/>
<linkts/css/styles.css
/assets/css/styles.css
</head>
Copilot: Yep!
Me: Please find any items in my inbox or sent items indicating (a) that I have agreed to take on a task or (b) identifying me as the person responsible for a task, removing duplicates and any items that I have unambiguously replied to via email or Teams. Time window is preceding 7 days.
Copilot: Prints a list with, at best, 5% accuracy
I know some folks have the peculiar idea that search is dead in favor of AI, but if AI can't accurately find information, it is useless. As near as I can tell, Copilot finds 3-4 items (but rarely the SAME 3-4 items across runs) and calls it a day. It just seems like nobody is actually testing any of this stuff. Microsoft is actively destroying its credibility because it's offering a tool with a party trick but is utterly unreliable. I will, therefore, not rely on it.
Edit: Just tried again. It refused to do it. I mean WTF.
It's mostly break things and little moving fast.
But the idea is that it's AI or death, so some broken buttons seems of less importances than the buttons itself being there, because the button working is a problem involving several teams, so no one is actually responsible, but the button being there is some team problem, and hell yeah they solved in the first sprint.
It's less fine if the things you're breaking are your core operating systems and the office suite that makes you most of your money and it takes you months to get the relevant teams aligned to push out a fix for the bad idea your execs pushed.
How did you manage this? Probably some company-wide group policy saves you. It keeps starting copilot for me, drives me crazy.
I did absolutely nothing special, other than running the latest-and-greatest Windows 11 Enterprise, which is what we put on most of our laptops without any customizations other than "require 2FA and some antivirus and firewalling" via Intune.
And I just went into our Azure admin portal, looking for any AI goodies to enable, and... there just doesn't seem to be anything there? And we have an Enterprise P2 subscription, which is usually where all the good stuff is, but, yeah...
How else do you explain Teams and the Hotmail UI?
Satya Nadella insists that Bing365Pilot has supercharged his productivity, but determining if he's high on his own supply or lying through his teeth is an exercise for the reader.
> Copilot consumes Nadella’s life outside the office as well. He likes podcasts, but instead of listening to them, he loads transcripts into the Copilot app on his iPhone so he can chat with the voice assistant about the content of an episode in the car on his commute to Redmond. At the office, he relies on Copilot to deliver summaries of messages he receives in Outlook and Teams and toggles among at least 10 custom agents from Copilot Studio. He views them as his AI chiefs of staff, delegating meeting prep, research and other tasks to the bots. “I’m an email typist,” Nadella jokes of his job, noting that Copilot is thankfully very good at triaging his messages.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-05-15/microsoft...
What a dorky thing to do. Does the CEO have some concept he's living a life that precisely _zero_ of his customers do? Who would even think to do this?
> “I’m an email typist,” Nadella jokes of his job
Yea, I have actual work to do, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with this?
I remember reading that when it first came out and all I can think is: No, he doesn't like podcasts, if you like podcasts you listen to them.
That's like saying "He loves food, but instead of eating it he feeds it to an analyzer that tells him what elements were detected in it".
I have to assume it's all BS/lies because if that's a truthful statement (about podcasts and the other things) then I really question wtf they are doing over there. None of that sounds like "the future", it sounds like hell. I cannot imagine how shitty it would be to have all my emails/messages to the CEO being filtered through an AI and getting AI slop back in return.
So, his experience with Copilot agents != Average Customer's experience
Someone in Microsoft needs to watch a lecture on affirmative consent.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing with AI, both local and online. If you tell me its available if I want it, I might come dabble a bit.
But cram AI into every facet of my machine? That's a 1 way ticket to never being installed on any system I ever own in the future ever again.
Companies should treat AI like a madam treats the workers in a whorehouse. You don't make them go door to door. You let the johns come to you.
They all use Macs lol.
And we all know the OEM deals preventing them to ship OS/2, BeOS, or whatever else they would like to.
The problem is that in modern computing landscape they cannot play that strategy, even when owning plenty of FOSS projects, there are plenty alternatives.
I guess that's worse than the Gemini button in Google Sheets that asks me to subscribe to AI services. I have multiple times been in a sheet and thought "asking an LLM how to do this thing I want to do right here in this product would actually be great if it works", remembered there was an AI-looking button in the top right, clicked it, and nope'd out of the subscription.
I just want to know if it works or not before I buy it.
There's the Copilot cli, then we have the Copilot built in to VSCode, then we have the Copilot that's in Github, then we have th M365 Copilot and the Windows Copilot and maybe a few more.
All work very differently and have different skillsets.
A physical button? So it’s like a mechanical placebo? If you have AI FOMO you can keep pressing it to calm the anxiety.
It's been 19 years since "Microsoft Re-Designs the iPod Packaging". [0] Is the disconnect displayed in this message thread that there's always 10,000 new people discovering a fact? [1]
But I'd actually love to know how to achieve that, and so far Microsoft AI is awfully silent on the subject...
If you haven’t seen how bad it is, here’s one example: Copilot Terminal. In theory, it should help you with terminal commands. Sounds great. In practice, it installs a chat panel on the right side of your terminal that has zero integration with the terminal itself. It can’t read what’s written, it can’t send commands, it has no context, and the model response time is awful. What’s the point of a “terminal assistant” that can’t actually assist the terminal?
This lack of real integration is basically the core design of most Copilot products. If you’ve been lucky enough to avoid them, good for you. If your company forces you to use them because they’re bundled with a Microsoft license, I genuinely feel your pain.
I don’t know how many forests we are burning to have a digital secretary, but surely the environment can take one more for the team?
Yes, but...does it? How do you know it isn't missing key points raised in the meeting? Not collecting actionable items?
Summarising seems like the absolute lamest thing an LLM could do for me. Like I want a Reader's Digest of my life, written but a word guessing machine.
I would wager a month's wages that this is the doing of some internal Security Review, wherein a bunch of out-of-touchers decided that the customers will want to prefer to be Safe and Secure instead of getting some actual value from integrating copilot into shell workflows.
Meanwhile people are yolo'ing it with various janky DIY wires and duct-tape githobbits that mash together whatever open weights model and user-level access to the system (or worse).
You mean the other way around, right? Because what could possibly go wrong when we let a language model hallucinate its way through which terminal command rhymes best with your prompt according to that SO comment from training data.
Thank god for this security team.
I think they're scared of the very real security issues with LLMs that may be unsolvable. It's not wise to give an llm free reign, at best maybe across your local computer but to be fully integrated into every application and every file it needs root. That would be the front door to many privilege escalation incidents in an enterprise managed laptop/desktop.
Apple is the only merchant not running to line up with anything at the moment.
IMHO, one company needs to make the bold move and make a fork of their OS that is AI native with AI native apps/workflow and phase out the old paradigm. It'll have to be two product lines, but I think the new OS will have uptake like we've never seen before.
AI works. It's actually useful. Since GPT-4, tool calling capability is good enough. It's trivial to do a better job than Copilot on any task using any current model of the major LLM providers. I'm not talking API, even with basic chat frontend, regular users easily beat Copilot by simply copy-pasting between Word/Excel and the chat frontend.
If a twelve year old can one-shot a better product for any given use case than Microsoft Copilot, then it's not just "merchants running to line up in front of you", something more basic must be broken.
I can only think of short snippets in history where they moved in that direction for maybe a year or two & then went scatterbrain.
Microsoft has benefited from a monopoly in the enterprise and has never been forced to innovate from a product perspective. See Slack/Teams as a case study of how they have operated when even slightly pushed.
* Edit - .NET, C#, TypeScript teams are an exception to the above. Highly underrated. Amazing talent there. Not sure who all gets credit. Anders & Mads for sure though.
There were other huge coordinated efforts like the TwC initiative and the Windows 10 refactoring but those were invisible to end users.
You are right if talking about the efforts improving C# and CLR, taking the lessons out of Midori, Blazor and Aspire.
Regarding F#, VB, and C++/CLI, the poor souls are on a lifeline that makes CLR nowadays stand out for C# Language Runtime, instead of the original Common.
And the chaos that reigns on Windows Forms, WPF, WinUI, MAUI certainly isn't helping.
Finally they are constrained in what they can put into C# DevKit as means to not canibalize Visual Studio and Windows sales, it can only be good enough, not great and feature parity.
Also regardless of the reasoning behind it, having TypeScript rewriten into C# instead of Go would have been a great opportunity to make C# more relevant outside Microsoft shops, instead anyone looking to contribute to TypeScript compiler will be learning Go instead.
IE6 was a really good browser when it shipped in 2001, especially compared to Netscape 6.
The problem was it didn't improve for the next 5 years.
Their inability to produce anything useful with Copilot is the largest example of this, but there are others. They are getting lapped by a ~300 person software company in the race to consumer-ize an x86 PC a into turnkey gaming platform, even with $100 billion in game studios and owning the API that every major game is developed against. Their footprint in education is gone, completely replaced by Google who not only produced an operating system that could be effectively run and managed on commodity hardware, but also developed the centralized functions for school administrations to use to manage classrooms at scale.
The consumer situation for Microsoft right now might be even worse than it was when Nadella took over.
Xbox was THE gaming console 20 years ago. Playstation was always a contender but Xbox Live was synonymous with the online console gaming experience. Halo was an untouchable juggernaut of a series for the first 3 titles.
It's mind boggling that Microsoft just let all that die without a fight. Worse, they seem to have actively shot themselves in the foot and then given up.
Maybe in the US, but not overall.
These predictions about the decline of Microsoft are like the Year of Linux on the Desktop; neither is going to happen anytime soon. Y'all can start predicting doom when there's a multi-year trend of declining revenue for MSFT and then maybe there's something to discuss.
The only thing good from Satya era on Windows development experience, is the improved terminal, and that now I don't have to install VMWare Workstation any longer.
It has been an incredibly lucrative strategy. We all herald some CEO's prowess in growing revenue when they've been doing the same playbook for decades now, and have been running on the inertia of Windows dominance on the desktop. Every new entrant is pushed out through countless incredibly lazy IT departments that just adopt whatever Microsoft shits out.
It's actually surprising that the one and only area where this really failed was as they tried to lever tying to the mobile market. A couple of missteps along the way are the only reason every office drone isn't rocking their Lumia ExchangeLive! CoDevice.
They've successfully indoctrinated whole generations to use Windows/Office. Here in Brazil using a computer was (probably still is) synonymous to using Windows/Office. Everyone had their pirated version of Windows and many don't even know that alternatives exist. When those people open companies they'll use what they know.
Software companies have to build for the most popular OSes and most can't justify anything else. Which then means most software only works on Windows and people can't leave it even if there are better alternatives (see Adobe). Finally, any non-closed computer comes with Windows so the cycle continues forever.
Office 2003 and prior were quite good, but then people think Google Docs is somehow equivalent to the functionality of Word.
Admittedly, Active Directory was afflicted by impossibly tiny windows for the management tabs, but the functionality worked (and you could write your own extensions to the LDAP tree and COM-based UI interface for them) as proven by the rehashing of part of the functionality into Google's "organisational" offerings (sign into Chrome and receive restrictions from your organisational (company) overlord, the new Group Policy).
It's a real pity. If we showed software today via a time machine to ourselves 25+ years ago, we'd be shocked at how slow and ineffectual it was and deeply distressed that this was the norm worldwide.
I remember this one. In the 90s MS reps would come to our company and sing about how their Visual Basic was superior to Delphi. When pointed to countless features that proved the opposite all they were able to say is that the MS has bigger dick.
Their recommendation was to have 2 developers instead of one we had. One would code GUI / front end in Visual Basic and the other write DLLs that would do all the meat.
They were trying to port it to a "modern" system and modern compiler so had millions of lines of code to fix, and their UI was MFC-based (so another shot in the foot).
"Fun" times.
Find a software market currently addressed by high price products; create a reasonably good product for that market; sell it for significantly less than the incumbent. Sell much higher volume of said product than the incumbent, thereby make much more profit. Repeat/rinse.
The Windows lock-in, embrace extend etc came after this. You can't lock in customers if they didn't already willingly buy your product.
From 1981
>Microsoft, which needed an operating system for the IBM Personal Computer,[9][10] hired Tim Paterson in May 1981 and bought 86-DOS 1.10 for US$25,000 that July
You say this like it was a mystery to start with. When you own 90+% of the user base, you can create trends with any changes implemented
It's absurd, but that's where it is. And a company like OpenAI basically hangs on it, because they have obligation almost ten time their revenue and the only way this does not deflate quickly is if others keep feeding it cash.
Yeah that's a great business idea, ask Boeing how that's going
Their main problem is that they never really learned how to compete on merit, just on first-to-market and all kinds of legal (and illegal) tricks.
Big Tech thinks they have a moat, when it’s really diffuse power being made available via genAI to build software good enough to replace them.
The only good thing that came out of Satya era has been the Windows Terminal and WSL.
It doesn't make it any better that Microsoft does this, but as a piece of practical advice, it seems like it can be done. There does still exist a core of Windows under all that garbage that is fast.
The sad reality seems to be that Microsoft do not care about the majority of their products anymore. Only Azure, Microsoft 365 CoPilot, CoPilot and maybe CoPilot.
Satya’s days are numbered. The OpenAI investment will be a very costly and painful lesson.
What progress.
From my experience, Microsoft’s GPT-5 integrations in Word, PowerPoint, and their ChatGPT clone struggle with basic tasks. Copy/pasting from ChatGPT still works better.
To be fair, building solid AI features is hard when model capabilities change so quickly. Reasoning and tool use only became reliable in the latest models, and when these Office features were planned, GPT-5 didn’t exist.
Side tangent: Copy/pasting from the Windows Copilot app is absolute dogshit. It makes no sense that the simple action of "copy this text" is this broken.
Perhaps this hopeless implementation is a wonderful microcosm and accurate barometer of the usefulness of AI-assisted development and tools.
Nadella has done a lot of listening through is CEO reign but it looks like MS is back in a "don't listen to customers, tell them what they'll get" phase.
On iOS, you type a message and send, and... nothing.
When the internet came out, did many legacy companies lead the way with online experiences, figuring out what the real killer apps now that everyone was connected were? I don’t know for sure, but I doubt it, I think it gave rise to some of the present crop of big tech, and others reinvented themselves after the use cases were discovered.
All that to say, I expect the same here. In 10 years there will be AI uses we take for granted, built by companies we haven’t heard of yet (plus the coding apps) and nobody will talk about stupid “rephrase with AI” and other mindless crap that legacy companies tried to push.
Or not even .. maybe someone said all products need to be AI enabled, so now they are. Just append "AI" to the product name, add bolt-on to call an LLM to do something, and declare mission accomplished.
What I am seeing are two really disturbing patterns: 1) really, really bad stuff that has been there for decades is still there, weighing everything down, for "backwards compatibility", and 2) a lot of horrible fluff and nonsense everywhere.
#1 is pretty self-explanatory, as I am editing docs in Word I am finding my muscle memory circa 1999 or so still works with it due to all of the formatting bugs that still exist.
#2 I saw with Windows 11 and the crazy adverts everywhere, seemingly random UI choices, half-broken or implemented tools and applications, and now random UI buttons thrown everywhere.
The 1-2 punch is devastating and makes using Microsoft products 10x more depressing than it was 10-15 years ago, and it wasn't a happy fest then either for me.
So to me, AI is just "more of the same" with Microsoft. It is more random shit thrown on the wall to see what will stick.
Their investment in OpenAI, giving them what was, at least ~1-2 year ago if not now, the best possible LLM to integrate in the office suite yet they are unable to deliver value with it.
Their ownership of Xbox and Windows should have allowed them to get a much better foothold in gaming yet their marketplace is still, to this very day, a broken experience with multiple account types. It's been 10 years.
The counter point is Azure obviously which still has great growth numbers, but that's a different org.
From the outside, it just seems like they should be doing better than they are. They have much better business integration than Google and Amazon. The fit is obvious and people are borderline hooked on excel. Why aren't they dominating completely?
These people have a UI button AND a hardware button on actual consumer devices, and it doesn't do anything. How?
Normally you get a frontier exploration phase where fringe people experiment with the new technology and try to figure out what it's good for. It feels like we just skipped that step entirely.
It's more like the "poo rush", where you are the one getting pooped on.
I suppose "AI" is easier to say than "word-guessing non-deterministic instruction transformer", but it does carry "intelligence" into the hearer, when the truth is that "AI" is not intelligent - it is a great mimicker of everything it has read.
What a bizarre way to organize the chart. Clearly Anthropic is leading -- their early bet on "programming" as the main use case is paying off.
The recent report from Openrouter [1] confirms as much: coding is the number one use case, with role playing / fantasy writing in second place.
I have a feeling the remaining use cases will never dominate, instead they will slowly mature into acceptable practices across the various industries. That will probably take longer than the investment bubble can hold though.
Previously I'm a vi or vim user for everything, for many years.
But I can say after a few years experience I'm not really impressed. It's too big and too slow. It has a few things I kinda like, a lot of half-working things I'd love if they worked consistently (e.g. some things I work on can be debugged, some can't, experts might know why but I don't) but as they are they're too unreliable to really change how I do things - but overall it's not enough to e.g. miss VS when I'm writing my own stuff, still in vim on Linux.
Actually all of the Microsoft technologies I've run into were disappointing with only two exceptions which I'll get to. Powershell felt like they hadn't really learned the right lessons from the Unix shells for example, and Entra ID (called "Azure Active Directory" when I started caring) is a confusing mess.
Two exceptions: 1. C# is a pretty good language. Mostly it's a better Java. Is that amazing? Not really, but it's still pretty good, it delivers reasonable performance, there's a large ecosystem, I don't hate writing it.
2. Azure itself has to have a way to "cut off" payments because Microsoft sold a product where students can get a limited amount of credit. The student doesn't have any money, so if they had $50 of Azure credit and Microsoft lets them spend $85 before turning off all the Azure systems that credit was funding, well, too fucking bad - Microsoft eats the $35 loss. Accordingly Microsoft are better (not perfect, but better) than AWS or Google's thing at actually turning stuff off when it exceeds what you asked to spend.
Edit: Or better still, convince all of their customers to throw away perfectly good hardware and upgrade to one with a single extra chip, creating a hazardous waste epidemic for landfills as a nice side effect. It's especially important to do this in the middle of a RAM and HDD shortage.
Really, I'll just never be half the great business strategist that these guys are. <sigh>
It is going to be very hard for OpenAI or Microsoft to compete with this now that Google has gotten their act together.
I'm seeing an unusual increase in that, and after some thought, I think the only plausible reason is that another company is afraid of them and creating anti-MS editorialized buzz.
My gut feeling tells me this is all related to long-term sustainability of AI products, and both GitHub and VSCode are major points of anxiety for other AI coding platforms.
We will eventually know if I'm right or not. If we see moves that point to other companies trying to decouple from GitHub and VSCode, then it's probably what is actually happening here.
Every procurement team is going to point to copilot, saying it’s included with the other Microsoft services a company is already paying for, so duplicate AI products won’t be approved for purchase.
Microsoft is laying claim to the desktop real estate, so in a few more generations of the technology, they’ll have the customers and competitors will already be starved out.
Then I dug a little deeper and saw that I could exclude it and go back to my old price.
For what I do with office, I have no use for copilot so you can guess what I did.
An unfortunate reality that software makers need to grasp is that a lot of people don’t use their software properly to begin with, meaning the addition of AI doesn’t push the needle - it’s just yet another “time saving feature” that the user won’t touch.
But this also means they end up with average products. They don't have the talent to do something exceptional.
This has worked well for them when they can just come in and copy something (say AWS in Azure) and not pay the innovation cost, but AI seems different for some reason, perhaps in the same way search was. You need the top 20% in order to really be successful.
Plenty of SV is building below average products with exceptional talent.
This is where they are failing.
> Plenty of SV is building below average products with exceptional talent.
Yes, you can hire exceptional talent and give them poor directions, resulting in poor products.
But to hire mediocre talent and still produce competitive products you must have an unfair advantage of some sort. The Windows and Office monopolies gave Microsoft that unfair advantage. But it is becoming clear that this unfair advantage does not extend to AI.
This is such a BS attitude. A person’s ability doesn’t map directly with their salary.
The very best developers I’ve ever worked with? Small companies outside of major cities (for life style reasons). Not everyone is trying to max their income; some want a good job doing something they love.
Small companies can offer more meaningful impact, if you’re not the type who likes being a tiny cog or commanding armies.
That's only if you're only looking at the top 10% or w/e of the market in the first place. New grad software engineer salaries at MS are higher than the median software engineer salary in the US.
The results are measurably worse every time vs. doing the exact same operation with Codex Cli or Claude Code.
There's something in the Microsoft AI framework that makes the worse and more "stupid" than the competition.
Although knowing Canonical they might add something to Ubuntu sooner or later.
However; their azure offerings are somewhat decent. AI Search is getting quite decent, access to Open AI models served through foundry is quite the differentiator (although the rate limits are an issue), their reference architectures are very helpful and their ancillary services, like document intelligence integrate well.
I'm a bit worried that their marketing dept has gotten their crappifying and obfuscating eyes set on those services though, given the recent rebranding of Foundry and what not, but the underlying services are decent.
Updated as it was almost close to being a generic comment about AI overall.
It's not just AI, it's a market fit and quality problem.
They don't need to solve it, however.
Their strategy has been quite clear: make it barely usable so that is passes muster to auditors, integrate it with systems that corporations need, and sell them on the integrations.
Teams and Azure suck?
So what?
Big companies will pay for that, because it's integrated with their ldap, has an audit trail, gives them the ISO-whatever stamp, and lets them worry about something else.
That the users are miserable is almost never the question for the ones signing the checks.
In a world where box-checking is paramount, this approach is a winning strategy.
Their office products can't even agree having the same menu options for the same functionality.
People use them out of corporate inertia: Windows laptops are cheaper than Macs and that brings the whole office suite in.
And now with how things are going with the American gov, foreign companies see security flaws on two fronts: Microsoft's AI's unreliability+invasiveness and the US gov's unreliability+invasiveness relating to its stateside companies.
You using OpenAI’s products? Aren’t Microsoft getting cuts as owners?
Not a great plan.
And noone should actually be shocked about his ineffectiveness. Covid was a great example of how clueless his leadership has been. Skype used to be a verb people used in common parlance, and yet they dropped the ball and let Zoom take over both consumer and enterprise segments while focusing on "restructuring" Skype into Teams for no reason whatsoever.
Prior to Covid, he was ready to let Windows run its course and axe that too. The sudden demand for sub-$500 laptops during the pandemic showed him that people still liked Windows and wanted a good OS from Microsoft. But instead of capitalizing on it to give customers what they wanted, he just gave us an ad-filled spyware with AI slop.
I have zero hope in any product with a Copilot in its name (including GitHub). At this point, unless there's a change in leadership, it's only a matter of time before XBox faces the axe.
Right direction, wrong execution.
ChatGPT respects privacy and allows for maintaining history while also opting out of using ones data for model training
And I don't trust Sam Altman and AI.com at all since their whole thing was built on lies. They could start regaining the trust by changing their company name.
That monkey face simply won’t go away.
This reads more like a hit piece than good faith article
(But yeah the MS AI products especially on consumer level are pretty terrible)
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. With the sums of money involved it could end up being make or break?
Helpful chart to draw conclusions
Copilot and AI are not on the list anymore.