| ▲ | _fat_santa 9 hours ago |
| The biggest issue I see is Microsoft's entire mentality around AI adoption that focuses more on "getting the numbers up" then actually delivering a product people want to use. Most of the announcements I hear about Copilot, it's always how they've integrated it into some other piece of software or cut a deal with yet another vendor to add it to that vendors product offering. On the surface there's nothing wrong with doing that but that just seems to be the ONLY thing Microsoft is focused on. Worse yet, most of these integrations seem like a exercise in ticking boxes rather than actually thinking through how integrating Copilot into a product will actually improve user experience. A great example was someone mentioned that Copilot was now integrated into the terminal app but beyond an icon + a chat window, there is zero integration. Overall, MS just reeks of an organization that is cares more about numbers on a dashboard and pretty reports than they are on what users are actually experiencing. |
|
| ▲ | ChuckMcM 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I expect this is the crux of the problem. There aren't any "AI" products that have enough value. Compare to their Office suite, which had 100 - 150 engineers working on it, every business paid big $$ for every employee using it, and once they shipped install media their ongoing costs were the employees. With a 1,000,000:1 ratio of users to developers and an operating expense (OpEx) of engineers/offices/management. That works as a business. But with "AI", not only is it not a product in itself, it's a feature to a product, but it has OpEx and CapEx costs that dominate the balance sheet based on their public disclosures. Worse, as a feature, it demonstrably harms business with its hallucinations. In a normal world, at this point companies would say, "hmm, well we thought it could be amazing but it just doesn't work as a product or a feature of a product because we can't sell it for enough money to both cover its operation, and its development, and the capital expenditures we need to make every time someone signs up. So a normal C staff would make some post about "too early" or whatever and shelve it. But we don't live in a normal world, so companies are literally burning the cash they need to survive the future in a vain hope that somehow, somewhere, a real product will emerge. |
| |
| ▲ | anthonypasq 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your premise that the leaders of every single one of the top 10 biggest and most profitable companies in human history are all preposterously wrong about a new technology in their existing industry is hard to believe. AI is literally the fastest growing and most widely used/deployed technologies ever. | | |
| ▲ | ChuckMcM 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yup, I've been here before. Back in 1995 we called it "The Internet." :-) Not to be snarky here, as we know the Internet has, in fact, revolutionized a lot of things and generated a lot of wealth. But in 1995, it was "a trillion dollar market" where none of the underlying infrastructure could really take advantage of it. AI is like that today, a pretty amazing technology that at some point will probably revolutionize a lot of things we do, but the hype level is as far over its utility as the Internet hype was in 1995. My advice to anyone going through this for the first time is to diversify now if you can. I didn't in 1995 and that did not work out well for me. | | |
| ▲ | lizknope an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I started working in 1997. Cisco was one of our big customers so I knew a lot of engineers there. Cisco stock hid $80 in 2000. In 2002 it was at $10. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CSCO/ I knew people who purchased their options but didn't sell and based on the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) had tax bills of millions of dollars based on the profit IF they sold on the day they purchased it. But then it dropped to $10 and even if they sold everything they couldn't pay the tax bill. They finally changed the law after years but those guys got screwed over. I was young and thought the dot com boom would go on forever. It didn't. The AI bubble will burst too but whether it is 2026, 27, 28, who knows. Bubble doesn't mean useless, just that the investors will finally start demanding a profit and return on their investment. At that point the bubble will pop and lots of companies will go fail or lose a lot of money. Then it will take a couple of years to sort out and companies have to start showing a profit. | |
| ▲ | RoddaWallPro 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What do you mean exactly by "diversify"? Money/investment-wise? | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sell the risky stock that has inflated in value from hype cycle exuberance and re-invest proceeds into lower risk asset classes not driven by said exuberance. "Taking money off the table." An example would be taking ISO or RSU proceeds and reinvesting in VT (Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF) or other diversified index funds. Taking money off the table - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45763769 - October 2025 (108 comments) (not investing advice) | | |
| ▲ | ChuckMcM 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What tomuchtodo said. When I left Sun in 1995 I had 8,000 shares, which in 1998 would have paid off my house, and when I sold them when Oracle bought Sun after a reverse 3:1 split, the total would not even buy a new car. Can be a painful lesson, certainly it leaves an impression. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I find it very easy to believe. The pressures that select for leadership in corporate America are wholly perpendicular to the skills and intelligence for identifying how to leverage novel and revolutionary technologies into useful products that people will pay for. I present as evidence the graveyard of companies and careers left behind by many of those leaders who failed to innovate despite, in retrospect, what seemed to be blindingly obvious product decisions to make. | |
| ▲ | rightbyte 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The product is the stock price, not Office or Windows. From that perspective they are doing it right. | | |
| ▲ | alsetmusic an hour ago | parent [-] | | And this is the broken mindset tanking multiple large companies' products and services (Google, Apple, MS, etc). Focus on the stock. The product and our users are an afterthought. Someone linked to a good essay on how success plus Tim Cook's focus on the stock has caused the rot that's consuming Apple's software[0]. I thought it was well reasoned and it resonated with me, though I don't believe any of the ideas were new to me. Well written, so still worth it. 0. The Fallen Apple - https://mattgemmell.scot/the-fallen-apple/ |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Your premise that the leaders of every single one of the top 10 biggest and most profitable companies in human history are all preposterously wrong about a new technology in their existing industry is hard to believe. Their incentives are to juice their stock grants or other economic gains from pushing AI. If people aren't paying for it, it has limited value. In the case of Microsoft Copilot, only ~3% of the M365 user base is willing to pay for it. Whether enough value is derived for users to continue to pay for what they're paying for, and for enterprise valuation expectations to be met (which is mostly driven by exuberance at this point), remains to be seen. Their goal is not to be right; their goal is to be wealthy. You do not need to be right to be wealthy, only well positioned and on time. Adam Neumann of WeWork is worth ~$2B following the same strategy, for example. Right place, right time, right exposure during that hype cycle. Only 3.3% of Microsoft 365 users pay for Copilot - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46871172 - February 2026 This is very much like the dot com bubble for those who were around to experience it. https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1g78sgf/... > In the late 90s and early 00s a business could get a lot of investors simply by being “on the internet” as a core business model. > They weren’t actually good business that made money…..but they were using a new emergent technology > Eventually it became apparent these business weren’t profitable or “good” and having a .com in your name or online store didn’t mean instant success. And the companies shut down and their stocks tanked > Hype severely overtook reality; eventually hype died ("Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome" -- Charlie Munger) | |
| ▲ | bandrami 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Were you around in 2008? | |
| ▲ | reaperducer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Your premise that the leaders of every single one of the top 10 biggest and most profitable companies in human history are all preposterously wrong about a new technology in their existing industry is hard to believe. It's happened before. Your premise that companies which become financially successful doing one thing are automatically excellent at doing something else is hard to believe. Moreover, it demonstrates both an inability to dispassionately examine what is happening and a lack of awareness of history. | |
| ▲ | xyzsparetimexyz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Doesn't matter what the leaders think if the users hate it and call it slop https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/microsoft-satya... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | downrightmike a few seconds ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| CEO has only delivered failure, and in trying to avoid that, they brought it |
|
| ▲ | deckar01 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| MS actually changed their office.com landing page to a funnel that tricks you to into installing a copilot app. It used to be the dashboard for MS web apps. There are no links to the web apps, but they are all still there, you just have to know the subdomains. The app doesn’t have any of the functionality that page used to offer… |
| |
| ▲ | iteria 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I noticed this and I wad enraged but it. The URL to the old page is way less easy to remember and I had to add it to my bookmarks. I'm still peeved about it. |
|
|
| ▲ | direwolf20 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They boosted copilot numbers by renaming office to copilot. No I'm not joking. Musk could learn from this to boost his FSD subscription numbers for his bonus payouts. |
|
| ▲ | heisenzombie 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have Copilot buttons sprinkled everywhere on my work computer, and every time I have tried to use them I get something saying "Oh, I can't do that". It's truly baffling. Copilot button on my email inbox? I try "Find me emails about suchandsuch", and get the response "I don’t have direct access to your email account.
If you’re using Outlook (desktop, web, or mobile), here are quick ways to find all emails related to...". Great, so it doesn't even know what program it's runnning in, let alone having any ability to do stuff in there! Sigh. |
|
| ▲ | Daz912 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Excel integration is amazing, saves me hours a week and helps me write complicated formulas in seconds. |
|
| ▲ | kryogen1c 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The wild thing is, the business prop is so clear - an llm built into your corporate data, with the same security, guard rails, grc auditing stack that protects the rest of your data. Why integrate and exfiltrate to an outside company? But copilot is fucking terrible. Sometimes I ask it powershell questions about microsoft products and it hallucinates answers. Get your shit together microsoft, why would I use this product for any reason if it doesnt work squarely inside your own stack |
|
| ▲ | WillAdams 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Or, scaling back trying to keep their datacenter bill manageable. Used to be one could upload an unlimited number of files (20 at a time) and process them directly at the initial window --- now one has to get into "Pages Mode", and once there, there's a limit on the number of files which can be uploaded in a given 24-hour period. |
|
| ▲ | basch 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The products they are delivering remain somewhat poorly promoted. Designer is more than an LLM grafted to a text field. https://designer.microsoft.com/ If you go to microsoft.com, which link at the top would you click to get to Designer? |
| |
| ▲ | mzajc 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Designer is more than an LLM grafted to a text field. https://designer.microsoft.com/ It's an AI image generator. There's thousands of tools that do this exact thing, and it seems their only "benefit" is infesting search engine image results with their horrible low-quality output. ... On a related note, here's another great LLM feature Microsoft seemingly failed to promote: instead of returning bits of page content or the description meta tag, the Bing API now gives you utter slop[0] for website descriptions! [0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/duckduckgo/comments/1pomrdg/aigener... |
|
|
| ▲ | llama052 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It feels like that's the entire MO of the Azure platform as well. Make a minimum viable product and then get adoption by selling at all costs, despite the products edges. |
| |
| ▲ | pwarner 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | And Teams | |
| ▲ | mook 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Didn't Nadella come from the Azure side? In that sense it'd make sense that what they were doing would spread to the rest of the company. |
|
|
| ▲ | apercu 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > "The biggest issue I see is Microsoft's entire mentality around AI adoption that focuses more on "getting the numbers up" then actually delivering a product people want to use." That succinctly describes 90% of the economy right now if you just change a word and remove a couple: The biggest issue I see is the entire mentality that focuses more on "getting the numbers up" than actually delivering a product people want to use. |
| |
| ▲ | hibikir an hour ago | parent [-] | | KPI infection. You see projects whose goal is, say "repos with A I code review turned on" vs "Code review suggestions that were accepted". And then if you do get adoption (like, say, a Claude Code trial), then VPs balk about price. If it's actually expensive now it's because they are actually using it all the time! The same kind of logic that led companies to migrate from Slack to Teams. Metrics that don't actually look at actual, positive impact, as nobody picks a risky KPI, and will instead pick a useless one that can't miss. |
|