184
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2025
184 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
40960 readers
198 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Hint: nobody wants to use Google's either.
Ohhh I get it. So MS should make the AI use mandatory and compulsory!
I have never seen an AI more consistently wrong on everything. It's the Apple Maps of AI.
Amazon AI has been wrong 3 out of 3 times I have asked it about products. Confidently incorrect about features.
I was going to say, you can remove “its” and “shoddy” and the title is still accurate.
I wanted to use Assistant but now they're butchering that to force people onto Gemini, which is functionally dogshit.
So not only are people not reading the articles any more, they're not even finishing reading the headlines all the way through?
You realize these companies can force growth via cramming it in to every channel they own, right? You realize growth on paper is not public endorsement, right?
But also, for people who do want to use ai, google's ai is just better. Nano banana is genuinely impressive.
So why aren't Microsoft's numbers going up? Everyone's faking it except them?
Because they're easier to ignore and disable than the biggest advertiser and search platform on the planet that gets their grubby hands in everything? MS doesn't have nearly as much of an online presence, and that's exactly where these "AI" are getting used.
On top of that, Google gets to feed search queries into their AI and generate results for most searches. Copilot does not get to arbitrarily answer every search someone types in to Windows.
So... yea, in a way, everyone else is more capable of forcing engagement than MS. Would you be more likely to try something that's merely available on a website, or more likely to enable a technology that could extract all of your personal information from your computer on accident?
They've got 70% of the desktop operating system share. Seems like every other thread about them around these parts is how they're "shoving AI down everyones' throats." I'm dubious that they're "easier to ignore."
Read my last paragraph, then. It's not how much MS gets in everyones' face. It's the specific avenues in which these companies are exposed. Google is everywhere on a platform that people don't have to install to try things out, or have it automatically execute without permission.
MS is not. Do you not remember the MASSIVE outcry when MS said they were turning on Copilot for everyone? They tried to shove it everyones' faces ala google, but their avenues for forcing shit are plainly different.
Alright. So for purposes of argument, let's accept all of that. Microsoft and Google are just faking it all, everyone's tricked or forced into using their AI offerings.
The whole table from the article:
| # | Generative AI Chatbot | AI Search Market Share | Estimated Quarterly User Growth | |
|
|
|
| | 1 | ChatGPT (excluding Copilot) | 61.30% | 7% ▲ | | 2 | Microsoft Copilot | 14.10% | 2% ▲ | | 3 | Google Gemini | 13.40% | 12% ▲ | | 4 | Perplexity | 6.40% | 4% ▲ | | 5 | Claude AI | 3.80% | 14% ▲ | | 6 | Grok | 0.60% | 6% ▲ | | 7 | Deepseek | 0.20% | 10% ▲ |
ChatGPT by far has the bigger established user base. How did they force and/or trick everyone into using them?
Claude AI is growing their userbase faster than Google, how are they tricking and/or forcing everyone to switch over to them?
None of these other AI service providers, except for Grok, have a pre-existing platform with users that they can capture artificially. People are willingly going over to these services and using them. Both Microsoft and Google could vanish completely and it would take out less than a third of the AI search market.
They got their user base by being the first ones to have open access to it. Being the first to market OFC gives a massive advantage.
You are also using flawed logic. This isn't AI vs everything. This is ONLY the "AI" products compared to themselves. These same exact numbers could happen with 1000 users across the entire world, yet you claim it's evidence of general public acceptance.
Flawed logic is bad logic. ChatGPT also sells their services to other corporations, where several of the others are end-user only, so again, you are using flawed logic to pretend like everyone actually wants this horseshit.
Right, and then everyone chose to go use them.
Every single one of them showed an increase in user growth, Microsoft just didn't grow as much as the others. They're not just shuffling the same users around, they're continuing to gain new ones.
And as I pointed out in another response to you, chatgpt.com is the fourth-most-visited website in the world. They're doing that with just a thousand users?
Fourth most visited website with almost 100 million less users than google. Seems like about 6 million people believe in AI and 100million regular users of the internet can't be fucked to use it.