Most active commenters
  • graemep(5)

←back to thread

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

(www.windowscentral.com)
296 points mohi-kalantari | 12 comments | 08 Dec 25 16:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
neilalexander ◴[08 Dec 25 17:13 UTC] No.46194859[source]▶
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.
replies(7): >>46194925 #>>46194942 #>>46194963 #>>46195067 #>>46195157 #>>46195245 #>>46195382 #
coldpie ◴[08 Dec 25 17:30 UTC] No.46195067[source]▶
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.
replies(5): >>46195081 #>>46195161 #>>46195214 #>>46195424 #>>46196013 #
saubeidl ◴[08 Dec 25 17:31 UTC] No.46195081[source]▶
Maybe the stock market is not a good system to organize ones economy around then?
replies(2): >>46195304 #>>46195359 #
mrweasel ◴[08 Dec 25 17:50 UTC] No.46195359[source]▶
The stock market weirdly enough ruins the idea of capitalism. Catering to shareholders hurts the idea that competition would create better and cheaper products.
replies(3): >>46195423 #>>46195494 #>>46195570 #
1. zem ◴[08 Dec 25 17:55 UTC] No.46195423{3}[source]▶
that's not the idea of capitalism; the idea of capitalism is that you should be able to make money by virtue of owning stuff. it's an inherently rich-get-richer scheme, competition has little to do with it.
replies(1): >>46195581 #
2. graemep ◴[08 Dec 25 18:06 UTC] No.46195581[source]▶
I think its obvious the GP means free market capitalism, which is what almost everyone who favours capitalism thinks is the form it should take.
replies(5): >>46195728 #>>46195848 #>>46195940 #>>46195984 #>>46196023 #
3. zem ◴[08 Dec 25 18:19 UTC] No.46195728[source]▶
I don't see how free market capitalism fixes that. I looked up a definition to make sure I wasn't missing something and as per investopedia:

"The term “free market capitalism” refers to an economy that puts no or minimal barriers in the way of privately owned businesses. Matters such as worker rights, environmental protection, and product safety will be addressed by businesses as the marketplace demands."

it's basically worship of owning the means of production and not being regulated in its use, e.g. if you own a company you get to dictate all sorts of unreasonable things to your employees, and any benefits gained from automation accrue to whoever can afford the up front money to own the machines.

replies(1): >>46195881 #
4. wolvesechoes ◴[08 Dec 25 18:29 UTC] No.46195848[source]▶
And these people has audacity to proclaim that socialism is based on fantasy.
5. graemep ◴[08 Dec 25 18:32 UTC] No.46195881{3}[source]▶
That is a bad definition and I cannot find it on investopedia. it is essentially an extreme libertarian spin on the definition.

There are better definitions on both wikipedia and Britannica:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_capitalism

https://www.britannica.com/money/free-market

Especially this hit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_capitalism#Concept...

6. Arainach ◴[08 Dec 25 18:37 UTC] No.46195940[source]▶
The free market abhors competition. It's much more profitable to be a monopoly - and profitable enough by far to squash any competitors in infancy.
replies(1): >>46195993 #
7. Draiken ◴[08 Dec 25 18:39 UTC] No.46195984[source]▶
Talk about utopia huh?

Free markets never existed, don't exist and never will. Markets are defined by laws and regulations in which they exist in. They can't ever be "free".

replies(2): >>46196004 #>>46196309 #
8. graemep ◴[08 Dec 25 18:40 UTC] No.46195993{3}[source]▶
Capitalists abhor competition. Adam Smith (as in "invisible hand") pointed this out. That is a subversion of a free market.
9. graemep ◴[08 Dec 25 18:41 UTC] No.46196004{3}[source]▶
I agree. A free market requires regulation to ensure competition otherwise it ceases to be a free market.
10. graemep ◴[08 Dec 25 18:43 UTC] No.46196023[source]▶
I assume the downvotes are because people do not know the difference between "free market" and "entirely unregualted market"?

Please get your definitions from someone reasonable (Adam Smith might be a good start) rather than Ayn Rand.

replies(1): >>46196390 #
11. Lammy ◴[08 Dec 25 19:08 UTC] No.46196309{3}[source]▶
Relevant U.S. Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#ar...

> “The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

12. TheOtherHobbes ◴[08 Dec 25 19:16 UTC] No.46196390{3}[source]▶
Applies globally.