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?
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?
Google Search being replaced by Gemini makes it easy for Google to have big AI numbers. Bing never got over its reputation of having bad result quality, and it’s only the default search engine on Windows PCs that don’t have Chrome or Firefox installed. My friend uses Windows and iOS and always sends me links to Gemini results, which normally are only slightly worse than “I’m feeling lucky.”
And yet beating out both of them by a very wide margin, with 61.30% of the AI search share, is ChatGPT. Which didn’t have any established reputation or pre-installed userbase or anything at all that either Microsoft or Google started out with.
Your friend uses Gemini, presumably willingly. That’s not “faked.” This narrative of “nobody wants AI” is false, it’s just popular among social media bubbles where people want it to be true.
ChatGPT sold themselves as the easy way to add “AI” to products. I would not be surprised what so ever if the VAST majority of ChatGPT’s usage came from other people forcing it into their products (like all the companion apps) and not actual, direct interest in AI from the general populace.
Think of it like mobile gaming. Most people do not spend much money at all on the microtransaction bullshit. Though it’s still successful in making the company money, thanks to whales and other uncommon big spenders. It would be totally unsurprising if GPT is getting their numbers in a similar fashion. Not from end users, but from selling it as a service to other companies and a very small percentage of heavy users.
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.
Hint: nobody wants to use Google’s either.
I have never seen an AI more consistently wrong on everything. It’s the Apple Maps of AI.
Ohhh I get it. So MS should make the AI use mandatory and compulsory!
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?
Google Search being replaced by Gemini makes it easy for Google to have big AI numbers. Bing never got over its reputation of having bad result quality, and it’s only the default search engine on Windows PCs that don’t have Chrome or Firefox installed. My friend uses Windows and iOS and always sends me links to Gemini results, which normally are only slightly worse than “I’m feeling lucky.”
And yet beating out both of them by a very wide margin, with 61.30% of the AI search share, is ChatGPT. Which didn’t have any established reputation or pre-installed userbase or anything at all that either Microsoft or Google started out with.
Your friend uses Gemini, presumably willingly. That’s not “faked.” This narrative of “nobody wants AI” is false, it’s just popular among social media bubbles where people want it to be true.
ChatGPT sold themselves as the easy way to add “AI” to products. I would not be surprised what so ever if the VAST majority of ChatGPT’s usage came from other people forcing it into their products (like all the companion apps) and not actual, direct interest in AI from the general populace.
Think of it like mobile gaming. Most people do not spend much money at all on the microtransaction bullshit. Though it’s still successful in making the company money, thanks to whales and other uncommon big spenders. It would be totally unsurprising if GPT is getting their numbers in a similar fashion. Not from end users, but from selling it as a service to other companies and a very small percentage of heavy users.
chatgpt.com is the fourth-most-visted website in the world (as of September, when this data is from). That’s the website, not the API. People have to choose to go to the chatgpt.com website in their browser, when OpenAI’s APIs are used by other products they don’t go to the chatgpt.com website. The API is at openai.com.
How are all those people people being “forced” to go to chatgpt.com?
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:
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.