I still think there's a potential niche for 365 Copilot in its boringness.
At work (not a tech company), there's an ongoing, slow, 365 rollout. The people who participate in the rollout are not technical in any way, but they all love it because they're not regular ChatGPT/Claude users, either. In a way, the restricted feature-set of Copilot compared to ChatGPT helps them, they're overwhelmed enough by Copilot.
IT loves 365 because it's so risk-averse. No big jumps, no surprises, clearly defined data and risk policies.
I think if they drill down into the boring, slow, predictable, they will capture the market of risk-averse non-tech companies, not people.
I've tried building agents using 365 for our internal documents and they're OK for basic stuff (what's in what document where - max 20 documents only!!), but langchain/RAG/whatever are a million times more powerful.
Unsurprising. I tried it probably a year ago. I asked it what meetings were in my calendar for the day and it couldn’t even tell me that. To add insult to injury, they wanted an annual commitment with up front payment at the time.
8 million active users after almost 2 years from making the $30pupm license available. Less than 2% of Microsoft 365 paying customers choosing to pay extra for Copilot. It's not difficult to see why Microsoft themselves have stopped reporting on AI revenue, as well as not disclosing any official numbers on M365 Copilot sales. Luckily, a source leaked these figures for Ed Zitron to report in his newsletter.
Part of the reason is Microsoft's borgy/corpo-confusing service levels.
I have a paid 365 account and couldn't determine from logging in or account info screens if I was on paid or just the freemium version with my 365 plan
In testing out what I did have access to with Copilot, it was incredibly bad compared to ChatGPT or Claude, so I decided not to pay for Copilot whenever I see an ad for it.
Funny how renaming standard Office apps to "Microsoft 365 Copilot" in mobile apps, web home page for office.com etc. did NOT make people realize they should buy an additional $30 plan called "Microsoft 365 Copilot" to actually get to use all features of Microsoft 365 Copilot.
If only MS could have asked Copilot whether their naming strategy makes sense.
I still think there's a potential niche for 365 Copilot in its boringness.
At work (not a tech company), there's an ongoing, slow, 365 rollout. The people who participate in the rollout are not technical in any way, but they all love it because they're not regular ChatGPT/Claude users, either. In a way, the restricted feature-set of Copilot compared to ChatGPT helps them, they're overwhelmed enough by Copilot. IT loves 365 because it's so risk-averse. No big jumps, no surprises, clearly defined data and risk policies.
I think if they drill down into the boring, slow, predictable, they will capture the market of risk-averse non-tech companies, not people.
I've tried building agents using 365 for our internal documents and they're OK for basic stuff (what's in what document where - max 20 documents only!!), but langchain/RAG/whatever are a million times more powerful.
Boring doesn’t bring in the billions and billions in stock though
Unsurprising. I tried it probably a year ago. I asked it what meetings were in my calendar for the day and it couldn’t even tell me that. To add insult to injury, they wanted an annual commitment with up front payment at the time.
8 million active users after almost 2 years from making the $30pupm license available. Less than 2% of Microsoft 365 paying customers choosing to pay extra for Copilot. It's not difficult to see why Microsoft themselves have stopped reporting on AI revenue, as well as not disclosing any official numbers on M365 Copilot sales. Luckily, a source leaked these figures for Ed Zitron to report in his newsletter.
Part of the reason is Microsoft's borgy/corpo-confusing service levels.
I have a paid 365 account and couldn't determine from logging in or account info screens if I was on paid or just the freemium version with my 365 plan
In testing out what I did have access to with Copilot, it was incredibly bad compared to ChatGPT or Claude, so I decided not to pay for Copilot whenever I see an ad for it.
Funny how renaming standard Office apps to "Microsoft 365 Copilot" in mobile apps, web home page for office.com etc. did NOT make people realize they should buy an additional $30 plan called "Microsoft 365 Copilot" to actually get to use all features of Microsoft 365 Copilot.
If only MS could have asked Copilot whether their naming strategy makes sense.
I had a subscription for a year and it was absolutely worthless. Has anyone found any single worthwhile use case?
I never understood how 365 Copilot's chat llm was so much worse than the free offerings from OpenAI at the time.
Copilot is often wordy, wrong, and seems like it can't do a lot of the same things I can accomplish without logging in on ChatGPT
Yet they get big American companies to pay for this.
something, something, clown world