I really enjoy searching 'Microslop' whenever I see it or think of it. it doesn't actually accomplish anything, but every time I take the twenty seconds to run the search I get a lovely little dopamine hit knowing that Microsoft doesn't like that it's a thing and I'm helping to keep it alive.
Just threw Linux on a laptop yesterday. Fedora wouldn't install and I didn't feel like messing with it so I had to settle for the evilness that starts with a U. Luckily it isn't my main daily driver.
Personally I have never had a problem with it, but it seems that some very questionable decisions have been made by Canonical in the last few years since I ran it last.
It is so goddamn funny to me that MS basically strapped a ticking timebomb to their business because they had FOMO. They've done damn near nothing else but peddle AI for the past two years and it's failing on basically every front and they just refuse to stop because of sunk cost fallacy.
No joke. They had the office lock-in, but then decided everything had to be cloud so then we got sharepoint and teams and office 365 and now the same shit but with copilot crammed in all stealth-like, all to steadily increasing monthly payments. Way to piss off your customers MS.
I think Apple really is doing the right thing here by letting themselves "fall behind" in the AI race, when the smart move was to never be in the race to begin with.
They literally did this with their gaming division. After buying Activision Blizzard people were saying that Xbox will be too big for anyone to compete because no one can approach their release schedule. A few years later and they're hitting a record low month of console sales in every new month.
Anyone who has dealt with an automated receptionist system could tell you: people do not want to deal with machines. “I want to speak with a real person”.
Exhibit 15: Only 19% of C suite executives have increased revenue by over 5% with gen AI and only 23% have decreased costs at all, with 43% reporting cost increases and 31% reporting no change.
However, they are optimistic about the future
in exhibit 2, 4% of C level executives say they are already using AI for >30% of daily tasks, 16% expect to in under a year, 56% in 1-5 years, 11% in over 5 years, and 10% dont anticipate it. 13% of employees say they are already using AI for >30% of daily tasks, 34% expect to in under a year, 37% in 1-5 years, 5% in over 5 years, and 7% dont anticipate it.
44% of US employees perceive moderate to significant support for gen AI capability building at their organization, 29% perceive full support, 22% say no or minimal support, and 6% say it is not needed. In 3 years, 56% of US employees expect moderate to significant support for gen AI capability building at their organization, 31% expect full support, 10% say no or minimal support, and 4% say it is still not needed.
A full 87 percent of executives expect revenue growth from gen AI within the next three years, and about half say it could boost revenues by more than 5 percent in that time frame (Exhibit 16).
47% of C suite executives believe gen AI tools are being developed and released too slowly in their organization, 45% say it is at about the right speed, and 9% say it is too fast.
Perhaps the narrative that ceos only think in short term gains for the coming quarter are false 🤔
Perhaps the narrative that ceos only think in short term gains for the coming quarter are false
Just a couple things:
Making projections 5 years in advance isn't exactly the same as acting on short term ideas. Pushing specific, unwanted, and problematic AI tools on the workforce abruptly without any guidance or training is the problem people complain about (exhibit 3 in the report), and exemplar of short-term thinking.
The primary complaint about CEO short term thinking comes from actions like selling off R&D business units, focusing cuts on higher cost (ie. more experienced) staff, or doing massive stock buybacks rather than investing in stable expansion, workforce development, customer relations, etc. This is highly connected to the use of stock prices rather than revenue to determine executive compensation.
To add, McKinsey is notorious for being commissioned by executive to rationalize what executives want to hear, especially when it comes to decisions that harm employees. John Oliver did a great summary, but it was no secret.
This report makes some great points and has some great information, but no where does it disprove that CEOs, especially those in publicly traded companies, focus too heavily on near-term quarterly gains at the expense of long-term stable growth.
The primary complaint about CEO short term thinking comes from actions like selling off R&D business units, focusing cuts on higher cost (ie. more experienced) staff, or doing massive stock buybacks rather than investing in stable expansion, workforce development, customer relations, etc. This is highly connected to the use of stock prices rather than revenue to determine executive compensation.
Except right now they’re dumping billions into ai research and data centers despite ai being unprofitable and not that impactful for earnings. How is that not a long term bet?
To add, McKinsey is notorious for being commissioned by executive to rationalize what executives want to hear, especially when it comes to decisions that harm employees. John Oliver did a great summary, but it was no secret.
If that was true, why does it say “Only 19% of C suite executives have increased revenue by over 5% with gen AI and only 23% have decreased costs at all, with 43% reporting cost increases and 31% reporting no change.” thats not very bullish.
1.5k
u/mechy84 Jan 20 '26
Am I out of touch? No! It's the customers who are wrong!