Microsoft is Actually Quite Worthless, Its Valuation is Based on Lies and Consistently Defrauding Shareholders
THE other day we showed that despite claiming to be surging in Clown Computing, Microsoft actually loses billions of dollars on Azure and its market share in servers is falling (it defrauds the shareholders), just as it does in desktops/laptops. In mobile devices Microsoft is virtually non-existent. Even assassinating Nokia didn't change that.
In some countries, Microsoft is already a dying or dead breed. Windows is only 3% in Haiti [1, 2] (down to 3.4% this month):
And Bing 1%:
It's not just in Haiti and not just in poor countries.
So where does Microsoft derive it supposed "worth" from? "Hey Hi" nonsense?
Let's examine this oldish article dated about 2 weeks ago:
When Rodney Brooks talks about robotics and artificial intelligence, you should listen. Currently the Panasonic Professor of Robotics Emeritus at MIT, he also co-founded three key companies, including Rethink Robotics, iRobot and his current endeavor, Robust.ai. Brooks also ran the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) for a decade starting in 1997.In fact, he likes to make predictions about the future of AI and keeps a scorecard on his blog of how well he’s doing.
He knows what he’s talking about, and he thinks maybe it’s time to put the brakes on the screaming hype that is generative AI. Brooks thinks it’s impressive technology, but maybe not quite as capable as many are suggesting. “I’m not saying LLMs are not important, but we have to be careful [with] how we evaluate them,” he told TechCrunch.
He says the trouble with generative AI is that, while it’s perfectly capable of performing a certain set of tasks, it can’t do everything a human can, and humans tend to overestimate its capabilities. “When a human sees an AI system perform a task, they immediately generalize it to things that are similar and make an estimate of the competence of the AI system; not just the performance on that, but the competence around that,” Brooks said. “And they’re usually very over-optimistic, and that’s because they use a model of a person’s performance on a task.”
He added that the problem is that generative AI is not human or even human-like, and it’s flawed to try and assign human capabilities to it. He says people see it as so capable they even want to use it for applications that don’t make sense.
We're already seeing the LLM bubble imploding demand-wise and, as noted in Daily Links this morning, "Microsoft trying desperately to fake usage" by virtually forcing Vista 10 to have it if not use it. Such "shovelware" tends to mostly alienate users, which is maybe why we see growing adoption of GNU/Linux.
Microsoft's future is not what Wall Street "tells" us. █
