Comment by moregrist

Comment by moregrist 9 hours ago

2 replies

I think the answer is pretty simple.

It's pretty clear that Microsoft had "Everything must have Copilot" dictated from the top (or pretty close). They wanted to be all-in on AI but didn't start with any actual problems to solve. If you're an SWE or a PM or whatever and suddenly your employment/promotion/etc prospects depend on a conspicuously implemented Copilot thing, you do the best you can and implement a chat bot (and other shit) that no one asked for or wants.

I don't know Anthropic's process but it produced a tool that clearly solves a specific problem: essentially write code faster. I would guess that the solution grew organically given that the UI isn't remotely close to what you'd expect a product manager to want. We don't know how many internal false-starts there were or how many people were working on other solutions to this problem, but what emerged clearly solved that problem, and can generalize to other problems.

In other words, Microsoft seems to have focused on a technology buzzword. Anthropic let people solve their own problems and it led to an actual product. The kind that people want. The difference is like night and day.

Who knows what else might have happened in the last 12 months if C-suites were focused more on telling SWEs to be productive and less on forcing specific technology buzzwords because they were told it's the future.

softwaredoug 3 hours ago

Having worked in large orgs, I can totally imagine someone having an idea like Claude Code and it getting quietly shelved because it

(A) doesn’t align to some important persons vision, who is incentivized have their finger on whatever change comes about

(B) might step on a lot of adjacent stakeholders, and the employees stakeholder may be risk adverse and want to play nice.

(C) higher up stakeholder fundamentally don’t understand the domain they’re leading

(D) the creators don’t want to fight an uphill battle for their idea to win.

  • yesiamyourdad 3 minutes ago

    They have copilot-cli, which is something like Claude Code, it's actually pretty effective, at least more effective than Copilot+VSCode.

    I think in the end it's branding. They want people to think "Copilot = AI" but the experience is anywhere from fairly effective to absolute trash. And the most visible applications are absolute trash. It really says something when Ethan Mollick is out there demonstrating that OpenAI is more effective at working with Excel than the built in AI.

    There was an article posted here yesterday that said "MS has a lot to answer for with Copilot", and that was the point: MS destroyed their AI brand with this strategy.