there's a microsoft guy in dayjob meeting and i already instinctively want him dead on subconscious level
he's talking about copilot
lord please strike him down with lightning, just explode him
lord please strike him down with lightning, just explode him
@hj They're operating it at a loss and they're still trying to make more people use it. A feller might wonder why.
:gondola_head: 
@mangeurdenuage @hj
> That has been the strategy of all proprietary SaaSS since forever.
Yeah, have worked at several VC-funded startups, I know. The question is why are they still spending this much on user acquisition.
> That has been the strategy of all proprietary SaaSS since forever.
Yeah, have worked at several VC-funded startups, I know. The question is why are they still spending this much on user acquisition.
@p @hj @mangeurdenuage Because they also tend to make users leave, sometimes by pretty much kicking them out.
@lanodan @hj @mangeurdenuage I don't mean the general case.
In the specific case of Microsoft spending nuclear-plant levels of electricity and doing massive pushes to send people out to train other companies to use Copilot more, pushing "FREE COPILOT!" on VSCode users and Github users, and having quotas for a percentage of lines of code generated rather than written, right? They're spending way more on this than seems reasonable in order to corner a market that will not ever be profitable.
There's something they believe about this market that is not obvious to me; I am curious what it is.
In the specific case of Microsoft spending nuclear-plant levels of electricity and doing massive pushes to send people out to train other companies to use Copilot more, pushing "FREE COPILOT!" on VSCode users and Github users, and having quotas for a percentage of lines of code generated rather than written, right? They're spending way more on this than seems reasonable in order to corner a market that will not ever be profitable.
There's something they believe about this market that is not obvious to me; I am curious what it is.
Follow
@p @lanodan @hj @mangeurdenuage
Because more users looks like a growth, and you can borrow money against it. It looks like more paying users in the future... The good old "if only 1 % fallacy"
@p @lanodan @hj @mangeurdenuage
I do agree with you, but banks obviously don't.
@p @lanodan @hj @mangeurdenuage
I think the highest possible value should be, where the interest is the total value of the market, since as long as you pay the interest, it is more beneficial to the bank, then you actually paying the debt off.
> Because more users looks like a growth, and you can borrow money against it.
Check the rest of the thread; you can't borrow more than the total expected value of a market.