There has been something bouncing around in my head in the days since both Google and Microsoft announced new AI features for their productivity applications. I felt significantly more negatively about Google’s framing of the features than Microsoft’s. I did not understand why — they are effectively the same announcements, right? Both companies are adding generative AI to their writing, slideshow, and spreadsheet apps — why should I feel differently about either of them? Then, I read both of their press releases again…
This is how Google describes an intended use case for their new AI features:
In Gmail and Google Docs, you can simply type in a topic you’d like to write about, and a draft will be instantly generated for you. So if you’re a manager onboarding a new employee, Workspace saves you the time and effort involved in writing that first welcome email.
In contrast, here is Microsoft. The AI is closer to a creative partner than anything else:
Copilot gives you a first draft to edit and iterate on — saving hours in writing, sourcing, and editing time. Sometimes Copilot will be right, other times usefully wrong — but it will always put you further ahead. You’re always in control as the author, driving your unique ideas forward, prompting Copilot to shorten, rewrite or give feedback.
On Stratechery, Ben Thompson finds a similar distinction:
In Google’s view, computers help you get things done — and save you time — by doing things for you.
[…]
All of [Microsoft’s] demos throughout the presentation reinforced this point: the copilots were there to help, not to do — even if they were in fact doing a whole bunch of the work. Still, I think the framing was effective: it made it very clear why these copilots would be beneficial, demonstrated that Microsoft’s implementation would be additive not distracting, and, critically, gave Microsoft an opening to emphasize the necessity of reviewing and editing. In fact, one of the most clever demos was Microsoft showing the AI making a mistake and the person doing the demo catching and fixing the mistake while reviewing the work.
To Microsoft, AI should help. To Google, AI should do.
A genuine case could be made for both approaches. I know which one I prefer, though.