Skip to main content

Why Microsoft is bringing Copilot together

 I don’t think Microsoft is bringing Copilot together just to make its product catalogue easier to understand.

The new Home, Code and Autopilot capabilities connect everyday work, building solutions and persistent agents, with a staged rollout. But this is not one unlimited licence for everything. GitHub Copilot, for example, still has separate plans.

Think about preparing a customer proposal. You need documents, customer information, a cost model and perhaps a small automation. You want to finish the proposal, not decide which Copilot should handle each step.

For me, this explains part of the change. The more interesting part is why Microsoft wants to do it now.

If another AI assistant becomes the place where we start our work, Microsoft’s applications could become tools running in the background. Microsoft would still provide the software, but another platform would have the direct relationship with the user. I see this move as a way to protect that relationship.

There is a technical connection too. Code uses the same underlying technology as GitHub Copilot. To me, this is a sign that capabilities developed for software engineering are becoming useful for broader business tasks.

Then there is the money. Microsoft combines fixed subscriptions with usage-based billing. This creates room for revenue to grow with agent activity, even without more employee licences. For customers, it means that a simpler experience will not necessarily mean a simpler bill.

What comes next? My guess is fewer decisions about which tool to open, and more connections between business processes and software development. I don’t expect specialised tools to disappear. I expect users to notice the boundaries less.

The part I would watch closely is the cost of getting a task completed correctly, including retries and human review.

Before scaling, I would start with one process and check who approves the result, what happens when the agent gets it wrong, and whether it actually saves effort.

Microsoft is making a case for doing more work inside Copilot. We still need to decide which work belongs there.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to audit an Azure Cosmos DB

In this post, we will talk about how we can audit an Azure Cosmos DB database. Before jumping into the problem let us define the business requirement: As an Administrator I want to be able to audit all changes that were done to specific collection inside my Azure Cosmos DB. The requirement is simple, but can be a little tricky to implement fully. First of all when you are using Azure Cosmos DB or any other storage solution there are 99% odds that you’ll have more than one system that writes data to it. This means that you have or not have control on the systems that are doing any create/update/delete operations. Solution 1: Diagnostic Logs Cosmos DB allows us activate diagnostics logs and stream the output a storage account for achieving to other systems like Event Hub or Log Analytics. This would allow us to have information related to who, when, what, response code and how the access operation to our Cosmos DB was done. Beside this there is a field that specifies what was th...

Can User Technical Profile Influence AI Architecture Decisions?

In the last few days, I ran a small experiment on Devin/Windsurf/Cascade, BMAD, and LLM-based architecture decisions. The initial concern was simple: if an AI coding assistant knows something about the user, for example, that the user is a Java developer or a .NET developer, can this information influence the architecture and technology stack that the AI will propose? This question is important because many companies are starting to use AI tools not only for coding but also for product discovery, architecture, documentation, and technical decision-making. If the AI is influenced by the developer's personal profile, the result may not be fully neutral. It may look like a business or architecture decision, but in reality, it may be partially shaped by the context of the person using the tool. The test was done using BMAD with Devin/Windsurf/Cascade. The scenario was a unified field service operations platform. The task was to let BMAD refine the product, define the architecture and s...

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine: threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration: TeamCity .NET 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see...