10 ms·

I would think that if they actually spent the time and money fixing the core functionality of their core products (like Windows and Office) that they might have

I would think that if they actually spent the time and money fixing the core functionality of their core products (like Windows and Office) that they might have a much easier time promoting things like Copilot. Instead they leave their users wondering why they're so hell-bent on shoehorning AI into a Start menu that takes whole seconds longer to open than it should or into Windows Search that regularly fails to find installed programs or local files.

jacquesm 10mo ago
Because they so much want to be a service business than a software business. Microsoft execs are losing sleep over becoming the next IBM, not realizing they are already there and have been for a long time. 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.
- morkalork 10mo ago
  To be pedantic, IBM is a service company
  - benterix 10mo ago
    This follows from the parents statement.
  - John23832 10mo ago
    That's the point.
  - MrMorden 10mo ago
    And IBM could have been AWS a decade earlier had they so chose.
- toomuchtodo 10mo ago
  I’m actually somewhat stoked about generative AI from a “good enough” perspective, because at this inflection point where a lot of countries and organizations are looking for Microsoft alternatives (digital sovereignty, etc), this is the best time to be able to build and deploy alternatives with the productivity advantages (if any) AI might provide. 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.
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    Big tech's moat is mostly built up around perceived security (not actual security) and abuse of monopoly positions, AI is going to make it easier for them to maintain this because it serves as an addictive component for the users, or so they hope. In practice it only appeals to the lowest common denominator, which is exactly how they built their empires in the first place. AI allows non-experts to pretend they are experts with confidence, and to produce output they claim as their own to which they have no real title. As a democratizing principle that's great, but as a quality-of-service-provided item it could easily become a disaster and I think MS et-al are betting that they will be able to 'fake it until they make it' on the quality front to avert that disaster. So far, I'm not seeing it. All I see is a massive leap forward in the first two years that still had some fundamental problems and a lot of fancy packaging of the same broken stuff since then. We're looking at band-aids here, not actual progress.
mrweasel 10mo ago
As long as companies, and consumers, still pick Windows and Office, then why spend the resources. Making Windows better won't move the sales number significantly, but removing the ads and the potential AI upsell is a direct hit to revenue. 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.
- falcor84 10mo ago
  I'm not familiar with many "consumers" who still pick a Windows and Office, and in this generation, there are very few consumers picking xbox. Outside of enterprises, they seem to be losing market share everywhere, and at this rate they'll be akin to IBM or Oracle in a few years.
  - airstrike 10mo ago
    Office is part of the "Productivity and Business Processes" at Microsoft. That business unit had $120B of revenue in 2025. Microsoft 365, which I believe includes Office, makes up $95B of that amount, which is split between Commercial (92%) and Consumer (8%) From there you can see why they're focused on Enterprise. Source: https://www.bamsec.com/filing/95017025100235?cik=789019 https://www.bamsec.com/filing/95017025100235?cik=789019 (page 39)
Spivak 10mo ago
I will say that with enough group policy and sysinternals turning absolutely everything off, turning all of the settings to maximum performance lowest flashiness, no web results, killing Cortana with reckless abandon my Windows installation is actually what I would consider to be snappy. I was surprised. 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.
- samrus 10mo ago
  All that tinkering is getting you dangerously close to daily driving linux. And the advantage there is that the maker isnt actively trying to get in your way
  - spaniard89277 10mo ago
    I've got two laptop in my new job. They sent me a windows one, when I asked for a linux one. Had to set up the laptop to begin working. Honestly, I had to do a lot of workarounds to get comfy. There's annoying stuff I cannot uninstall.
coldpie 10mo ago
Microsoft is a public company. That means their primary product is not products or services, it's their stock. Selling products & services can be an advertisement for their stock, but there are other methods of convincing people to buy their stock, too. Currently the stock market only wants stocks that have "AI" associated with them. It doesn't matter whether users like it or not, because having a viable business is not what the stock market is currently focused on. So, Microsoft is doing what they need to do to sell their primary product: shove AI into everything.
- brookst 10mo ago
  Are you saying they would rather double stock price than double revenue?
  - coldpie 10mo ago
    Sure. Decision makers are paid in stock price, not revenue. They would rather do whatever increases the stock price the most, with the least effort/expense.
    - brookst 10mo ago
      If only there was some correlation between stock price and revenue…
  - graemep 10mo ago
    Yyes, and prefer it to doubling profit or cashflow etc. I have not looked at MS in particular, but generally that is what the remuneration of the people at the top of most public companies is most strongly linked to.
  - Maxatar 10mo ago
    If you're someone who owns Microsoft, what option would you prefer? 1. Stock price remains the same but revenue doubles. 2. Revenue stays the same, but stock price doubles. Assuming all else equal, and recognizing that this is absolutely a simplification, but if these were the two choices then it seems a no brainer that you'd go with option 2. Revenue is a means of increasing stock price.
pjmlp 10mo ago
Exactly, even those of us that like Windows have a hard time talking about it when Microsoft treats it so badly, I really miss Balmer era in regards to Windows. The only good thing that came out of Satya era has been the Windows Terminal and WSL.
theiz 10mo ago
Or do things that actually work. Why, for example, can I not translate a PowerPoint using Copilot in Powerpoint? Why do I need to save it, then upload it into ChatGPT, translate it, then download it again, and open it in PowerPoint for further editing. But at the same time get all kind off nonsense I don't want pushed at me in Windows, like that MSN news clickbait crap.
dboreham 10mo ago
Nobody gets a bonus and a new boat doing that.
venturecruelty 10mo ago
But "we're fixing Windows and Office" doesn't get you a fat bonus, and it doesn't get investors a double-digit growth quarter. Anyone who tries to do the right thing will be disposed of. Why don't people understand this?

jacquesm 10mo ago

Because they so much want to be a service business than a software business. Microsoft execs are losing sleep over becoming the next IBM, not realizing they are already there and have been for a long time. 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.

morkalork 10mo ago
To be pedantic, IBM is a service company
- benterix 10mo ago
  This follows from the parents statement.
- John23832 10mo ago
  That's the point.
- MrMorden 10mo ago
  And IBM could have been AWS a decade earlier had they so chose.
toomuchtodo 10mo ago
I’m actually somewhat stoked about generative AI from a “good enough” perspective, because at this inflection point where a lot of countries and organizations are looking for Microsoft alternatives (digital sovereignty, etc), this is the best time to be able to build and deploy alternatives with the productivity advantages (if any) AI might provide. 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.
- jacquesm 10mo ago
  Big tech's moat is mostly built up around perceived security (not actual security) and abuse of monopoly positions, AI is going to make it easier for them to maintain this because it serves as an addictive component for the users, or so they hope. In practice it only appeals to the lowest common denominator, which is exactly how they built their empires in the first place. AI allows non-experts to pretend they are experts with confidence, and to produce output they claim as their own to which they have no real title. As a democratizing principle that's great, but as a quality-of-service-provided item it could easily become a disaster and I think MS et-al are betting that they will be able to 'fake it until they make it' on the quality front to avert that disaster. So far, I'm not seeing it. All I see is a massive leap forward in the first two years that still had some fundamental problems and a lot of fancy packaging of the same broken stuff since then. We're looking at band-aids here, not actual progress.

mrweasel 10mo ago

As long as companies, and consumers, still pick Windows and Office, then why spend the resources. Making Windows better won't move the sales number significantly, but removing the ads and the potential AI upsell is a direct hit to revenue. 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.

falcor84 10mo ago
I'm not familiar with many "consumers" who still pick a Windows and Office, and in this generation, there are very few consumers picking xbox. Outside of enterprises, they seem to be losing market share everywhere, and at this rate they'll be akin to IBM or Oracle in a few years.
- airstrike 10mo ago
  Office is part of the "Productivity and Business Processes" at Microsoft. That business unit had $120B of revenue in 2025. Microsoft 365, which I believe includes Office, makes up $95B of that amount, which is split between Commercial (92%) and Consumer (8%) From there you can see why they're focused on Enterprise. Source: https://www.bamsec.com/filing/95017025100235?cik=789019 https://www.bamsec.com/filing/95017025100235?cik=789019 (page 39)

Spivak 10mo ago

I will say that with enough group policy and sysinternals turning absolutely everything off, turning all of the settings to maximum performance lowest flashiness, no web results, killing Cortana with reckless abandon my Windows installation is actually what I would consider to be snappy. I was surprised. 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.

samrus 10mo ago
All that tinkering is getting you dangerously close to daily driving linux. And the advantage there is that the maker isnt actively trying to get in your way
- spaniard89277 10mo ago
  I've got two laptop in my new job. They sent me a windows one, when I asked for a linux one. Had to set up the laptop to begin working. Honestly, I had to do a lot of workarounds to get comfy. There's annoying stuff I cannot uninstall.

coldpie 10mo ago

Microsoft is a public company. That means their primary product is not products or services, it's their stock. Selling products & services can be an advertisement for their stock, but there are other methods of convincing people to buy their stock, too. Currently the stock market only wants stocks that have "AI" associated with them. It doesn't matter whether users like it or not, because having a viable business is not what the stock market is currently focused on. So, Microsoft is doing what they need to do to sell their primary product: shove AI into everything.

brookst 10mo ago
Are you saying they would rather double stock price than double revenue?
- coldpie 10mo ago
  Sure. Decision makers are paid in stock price, not revenue. They would rather do whatever increases the stock price the most, with the least effort/expense.
  - brookst 10mo ago
    If only there was some correlation between stock price and revenue…
- graemep 10mo ago
  Yyes, and prefer it to doubling profit or cashflow etc. I have not looked at MS in particular, but generally that is what the remuneration of the people at the top of most public companies is most strongly linked to.
- Maxatar 10mo ago
  If you're someone who owns Microsoft, what option would you prefer? 1. Stock price remains the same but revenue doubles. 2. Revenue stays the same, but stock price doubles. Assuming all else equal, and recognizing that this is absolutely a simplification, but if these were the two choices then it seems a no brainer that you'd go with option 2. Revenue is a means of increasing stock price.

pjmlp 10mo ago

Exactly, even those of us that like Windows have a hard time talking about it when Microsoft treats it so badly, I really miss Balmer era in regards to Windows. The only good thing that came out of Satya era has been the Windows Terminal and WSL.

theiz 10mo ago

Or do things that actually work. Why, for example, can I not translate a PowerPoint using Copilot in Powerpoint? Why do I need to save it, then upload it into ChatGPT, translate it, then download it again, and open it in PowerPoint for further editing. But at the same time get all kind off nonsense I don't want pushed at me in Windows, like that MSN news clickbait crap.

dboreham 10mo ago

Nobody gets a bonus and a new boat doing that.

venturecruelty 10mo ago

But "we're fixing Windows and Office" doesn't get you a fat bonus, and it doesn't get investors a double-digit growth quarter. Anyone who tries to do the right thing will be disposed of. Why don't people understand this?