Microsoft exec suggests AI agents will need to buy software licenses, just like employees https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-executive-suggests-ai-agents-buy-software-licenses-seats-2026-4

[mayintoronto@beige.party]

@cwebber Yeah okay, but if my agents have agents, will they need a license too?

[kkarhan@jorts.horse]

@miss_rodent @cwebber anythibg to maximize #profits and reduce #accountability…

[silvermoon82@wandering.shop]

@cwebber
Microsoft Copilot 365 for Copilot 365 Group License

[davebauerart@mastodon.social]

@cwebber Until the agents decide to write their own clones of the software or discover open source alternatives.

[blogdiva@mastodon.social]

@cwebber the fucking audacity

[rasterweb@mastodon.social]

@cwebber When your software needs a software license! It's cool because your employer can cut you out of the loop and just keep paying for a license that the software that replaced you can use.

[shansterable@ohai.social]

@cwebber
Microslop: We think you will love our AI agent
Corp: No, we don't find it useful
MS: We will force it on you and raise our prices
Corp: OK, I guess we will fire employees now
MS: But wait, that will reduce our revenue
Corp: And save us money
MS: No, you will need to pay for the software used by the AI software we are forcing you to pay for
Corp: We'll see about that
#Microslop #AI #Extortion

[gray17@mastodon.social]

@cwebber only if AI agents can also join a union

[syllopsium@peoplemaking.games]

@blogdiva @cwebber No, it's not audacious, or at least not even slightly new.

Back in the day of Microsoft SQL Server 7 (before the web was a proper thing) Microsoft had not understood that there was nothing under the terms of the license preventing the purchase of a limited SQL connection license, putting it on a server, and then multiplexing those connections to a web server.

They subsequently edited the license for all new copies, (illegally) tried to retrospectively change the license for existing licences despite the fact it contradicted the previously issued hard copy, and boy by the time SQL Server 2000 arrived were they very clear that web servers needed a specific type of license.

If 'AI', or anything similar to the multiplexing described above potentially affects a revenue stream, they will modify license schemes to retain revenue.

There is no such thing as a free lunch when you don't control part of the solution stack.

You want audacious? Try Oracle or VMWare instead.

[dale_price@mastodon.online]

@cwebber It’s just like how you can get infinite electricity by plugging a surge protector into itself, but for money

[401matthall@mastodon.xyz]

@cwebber

Sweet Mary mother of Jesus... These fucking people really are fucking _insane_...

The pile of code that's not an entity which requires a fee/license to use will require software, which is a pile of code and not an entity, that also has fees/licenses which runs on servers/infrastructure, which is not an entity, that also requires fees/licenses/rents.

I have a neat idea.

It's time to John Galt these motherfuckers. _We_ leave. We go have lives of peace and community.

[syllopsium@peoplemaking.games]

@blogdiva @cwebber Other recent example include a fight between licenses and CPU architecture. A database server (cough Oracle) is ridiculously expensive once things go beyond two CPU sockets? Well, IBM would sell you a special two socket incredibly multi core CPU system for a wincingly high but not quite as high price as licensing four SQL cores.

Of course, that only works for one release, the licensing catches up, and cores per socket become limited etc etc.

[space_burger_steve@mstdn.ca]

@cwebber Isn't this just the "you have two cows" version of venture capitalism?

[josh@hactivedirectory.com]

@rasterweb @cwebber It’s such a Microsoft thing to say too.

Buy windows server. For several thousand dollars. Just kidding! To use it you need “client access licenses” too.

Wait wait wait you’ll also probably need device CALs too.

Oh and RD CALs too.

Per processor! I meant per processor.

Oh and even if it’s virtualized.

Supports extra. And it sucks.

Also now it’s a subscription service.

Wait till you hear about Azure.

[ferrix@mastodon.online]

@cwebber "as we continue to disrupt the economics of information labor and computing, surely it will not disrupt *our* economics"

[edcates@mastodon.social]

@wordshaper @cwebber per token.

As in, you have to use the tokens for the AI still, but also pay a separate software license for every token you spend.

Shit, I probably shouldn't give them ideas.

[liquor_american@universeodon.com]

@cwebber ohhhhhhhh
ohhhhhhhhhhoohohhhooho

oohhohhhoh this is so so so so funny i'm going to fall out of my chair

You reckon you can actually make out the dollar signs in MS execs' eyes if you get close enough?

[tef@mastodon.social]

@cwebber oh my

[brokar@mastodon.social]

@ramin_hal9001

Right, but trying to monetize the beast seems to be a nobrainer.
So i wouldn't even put that in the ideas section.

And considering everything i doubt that they will ever break even with the revenues except maybe overcharging governments for AI usage or forcing it integrated in other products at higher prices.
The bubble will burst, we yet just can't predict when.

@cwebber

[brokar@mastodon.social]

@josh

Well, seeing what Broadcom pulled off with the licenses i think Microsoft is not the only sour candy in the bag any more besides Oracle.

@rasterweb @cwebber