Microsoft has a problem: lack of demand for its AI products

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Brand Sprawl and Naming Confusion

  • Many commenters mock the “Copilot everywhere” branding (Windows, 365, GitHub, VS, terminal, hardware button) as incoherent and confusing, with each “Copilot” behaving differently and offering different capabilities.
  • Physical Copilot keys on new laptops that do nothing or open minimal web views are seen as emblematic of overpromising and underdelivering.

Product Quality, Integration, and UX Failures

  • Repeated anecdotes of Copilot features in Outlook, Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Teams, VS/VS Code, terminal, and Windows either not working, being context-blind, or destroying structure (e.g., rewriting reports instead of editing; broken HTML; Copilot buttons with empty menus).
  • A common theme: Copilot UIs are just side panels or chat boxes with little real integration into the underlying app or data; users can do better by copy‑pasting into ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini.
  • Many see this as another iteration of Clippy/Cortana/MS Bob: intrusive assistants pushed rather than invited, now multiplied across the OS.

Bundling, Monopoly, and Procurement

  • Strong view that Microsoft will drive adoption via bundling and licensing, not user demand: “we already pay for M365, why pay for anything else?”
  • Teams is cited as the template: mediocre product that wins on integration, contracts, and IT inertia, not user preference.
  • Some predict Copilot will be “forced” in enterprises regardless of staff enthusiasm.

Strategy, Talent, and Leadership Critiques

  • Several argue Microsoft hires “middle of the market” talent and relies on legacy monopolies and tying instead of competing on product merit; others counter that compensation ≠ ability and that this framing is oversimplified.
  • Nadella’s AI push is compared to Ballmer’s cloud push: right bet, poor execution.
  • Multiple calls for a leadership change and a “product person” to refocus on core quality (Windows, Office) before layering AI on top.

Competitors and Alternatives

  • Gemini is praised as fast and practical; Claude/Cursor and other coding tools are widely seen as better integrated and more capable than GitHub/VS Copilot.
  • Some note Azure AI backend services are decent, but fear marketing and renaming (“Foundry”, “Dragon Copilot”) will eventually degrade them.
  • A few report genuine value from Copilot in Teams (meeting summaries, action items) and Excel (data cleanup, formulas), but this is framed as the exception, not the rule.

Economic and Structural Factors

  • Several threads tie the AI push to stock-market incentives: being perceived as an “AI company” is seen as more important than delivering viable products; AI features are treated as a way to sell stock and upsell licenses, not solve user problems.