Microsoft resumed automatically installing the Microsoft 365 Copilot app on eligible commercial Windows 10 and Windows 11 PCs in mid-June 2026, with the broadest Microsoft 365 Apps enterprise wave scheduled for July 2026 outside the European Economic Area. The rollout is not merely another Copilot skirmish; it is Microsoft testing how far productivity-suite control can substitute for administrator consent. Italy’s new antitrust probe into Microsoft 365 AI bundling gives the episode a sharper edge because regulators are now asking whether Copilot is being sold, priced, and delivered as a choice at all. For enterprise IT, the practical question is no longer whether Microsoft wants AI everywhere, but whether the company will treat managed PCs as managed by the customer.
The most important fact about this rollout is not that Copilot is arriving. It is how Copilot is arriving.
Microsoft is using the Microsoft 365 Apps update mechanism rather than the more familiar consumer pathways of the Microsoft Store or Windows Update. That matters because Office Click-to-Run is not a decorative updater. It is the plumbing by which Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Teams stay patched, licensed, and feature-current across millions of commercial endpoints.
That gives Microsoft a powerful advantage. Organizations that have invested years in taming Windows Update rings, Store app restrictions, and endpoint application control may discover that their controls do not neatly map onto the Office servicing channel. A new AI hub can appear as part of the productivity suite’s normal servicing stream, not as a standalone software deployment event that triggers the same approval workflow as a third-party application.
This is the kernel of the controversy. Microsoft can argue that the Microsoft 365 Copilot app is part of the Microsoft 365 experience and therefore belongs in the Microsoft 365 servicing flow. Administrators can argue, just as reasonably, that an AI application surfaced to users, pinned into workflows, and connected to organizational identity is new software that deserves explicit change approval.
Those positions are not technical opposites. They are governance opposites.
The app at issue here is the Microsoft 365 Copilot app on commercial Windows devices. It is the work-focused hub that ties into a user’s Microsoft 365 environment and points them toward AI features across documents, mail, meetings, spreadsheets, presentations, and enterprise search. For licensed users, that means a user-facing doorway into organizational content through Microsoft Graph and Microsoft’s AI services.
That does not automatically mean data is being misused. Microsoft’s enterprise pitch is built around tenant boundaries, permissions, identity, compliance, and the promise that customer data is not used to train foundation models. In many organizations, those assurances are meaningful and contractually important.
But the presence of those controls does not erase the deployment problem. An AI app that can reason over what a user is already allowed to access changes the blast radius of sloppy permissions, forgotten SharePoint sites, over-broad Teams membership, and decades of “everyone except external users” convenience. Copilot does not create bad information governance, but it can make bad information governance suddenly visible, searchable, and operationally painful.
That is why many IT teams object to default installation even when they are not anti-AI. They want Copilot introduced after license planning, permission reviews, data classification work, user training, and help-desk preparation. Microsoft’s default posture reverses that order: put the entry point in front of users first, let administrators catch up later.
Europe’s Digital Markets Act has made pre-installation, bundling, and user choice central issues for designated gatekeepers. Microsoft has already had to adjust parts of its European software strategy under regulatory pressure, including how it packages Teams with Microsoft 365. In that context, declining to push the Copilot app automatically in the EEA looks less like a courtesy and more like a legal risk calculation.
Outside the EEA, Microsoft is making a different calculation. In the United States, Canada, Australia, much of Asia, Latin America, and other markets, enterprise customers may complain loudly, but the regulatory framework is less prescriptive about whether a platform owner can add a first-party app through an existing commercial suite. Microsoft is betting that contractual admin controls and post hoc opt-outs will be enough.
That creates an uncomfortable split-screen reality. European users are treated as needing a clearer choice because law requires it. Many non-European enterprises are treated as having already consented by virtue of running Microsoft 365 Apps.
For global administrators, this is not just a philosophical irritation. It means the same tenant estate may behave differently based on geography, channel, licensing, device registration, and update timing. The burden of understanding those distinctions falls on IT, not on the vendor that created them.
The Italian concern is about whether consumers were adequately informed that Microsoft 365 had been integrated with Copilot and Designer, and whether price increases were communicated in a way that gave users a meaningful chance to understand or reject the AI-linked bundle. Microsoft says it will cooperate, and an investigation is not a finding of wrongdoing. Still, the direction of travel is clear: regulators are beginning to treat AI bundling as a consumer and competition issue, not merely a product roadmap.
That matters because Microsoft’s AI strategy depends on collapsing distribution friction. If Copilot has to be discovered, evaluated, procured, deployed, trained, and justified like a normal enterprise product, adoption will be slower and more uneven. If it appears inside the applications and subscriptions customers already use, Microsoft gets reach first and debate second.
The same pattern runs through the enterprise rollout. Microsoft’s framing is convenience: users get easier access to productivity-enhancing features. The administrator’s counter-frame is consent: a managed endpoint should not receive a new AI surface merely because the vendor controls a servicing channel.
Italy’s investigation will not decide whether an American sysadmin wakes up to a new Copilot icon in July. But it strengthens the broader argument that AI bundling is becoming a competition-policy issue. The more Microsoft makes Copilot inseparable from Microsoft 365, the more regulators will ask whether competitors ever had a fair chance to be chosen.
The June rollout shows that the lesson was narrower. Microsoft can make one Copilot app removable while distributing another through a different channel. It can provide a policy for a consumer-facing Windows component while preserving a separate Microsoft 365 Apps pathway for the enterprise hub. It can say “control” and still make the default “installed.”
This is a familiar Microsoft maneuver. The company rarely removes administrator controls entirely; instead, it changes the default, moves the control surface, or splits the product into enough similarly named pieces that blocking one does not block another. That is survivable for large enterprises with dedicated Microsoft 365 engineers. It is punishing for small IT teams, MSPs, and regulated organizations that have to translate product taxonomy into enforceable policy quickly.
The practical result is predictable. Some organizations will block the install in time. Some will discover it after users ask what Copilot is. Some will remove the app but miss the policy that prevents reinstallation. Some will disable the hub while leaving in-app Copilot entry points untouched. The confusion is not accidental damage; it is the cost of Microsoft turning Copilot into an ambient layer rather than a discrete product.
But enterprise IT does not evaluate software solely by its vendor’s ambition. It evaluates software by operational risk, compliance exposure, support cost, user confusion, procurement alignment, and reversibility. On those measures, automatic installation is a poor fit for many organizations.
The biggest issue is not that Copilot will immediately leak secrets. The bigger issue is that it changes user expectations before the organization has decided what AI use should look like. A user who sees Copilot in the Start menu may assume it is approved. A manager may ask why the company is “not using the AI we already have.” A department may start budgeting around features legal or compliance has not cleared.
Then there is the help-desk effect. Users without the right licenses or permissions may encounter prompts, dead ends, or upsell language. In a large company, even a small percentage of confused users can become a measurable ticket spike. In an MSP environment, that spike becomes customer-facing labor created by a vendor default.
Security teams have their own concern: discoverability. Copilot-style tools reward clean permissions, well-labeled data, and disciplined lifecycle management. Many organizations do not have those things. They have inherited file shares, abandoned teams, stale groups, and sensitive content that is technically permissioned but culturally forgotten. AI does not need to breach the perimeter to cause trouble if the perimeter has been badly drawn for years.
The problem is that these controls must be discovered, understood, and applied before the relevant update wave reaches devices. A policy applied after installation may prevent recurrence without undoing what has already happened. Manual removal can clean up the visible app, but without the right block in place, future servicing may bring it back.
That distinction is crucial. Microsoft’s policy model often assumes administrators are continuously watching Message Center posts, roadmap changes, admin center toggles, and servicing documentation. Many are, but many are not. The company’s customers include hospitals, schools, regional governments, small manufacturers, law firms, nonprofits, and businesses where “Microsoft 365 admin” is one responsibility among twenty.
This is where Microsoft’s argument about manageability starts to fray. A setting that exists somewhere is not the same as consent. A toggle buried in a specialized admin portal is not the same as an opt-in deployment. A 24-hour propagation window is not the same as an approval process.
If Microsoft believes Copilot is enterprise software, it should behave like enterprise software. That means giving administrators a default-deny posture for new AI surfaces, or at minimum a tenant-level “do not introduce new AI apps without explicit approval” control that applies across Copilot’s many identities. Anything less guarantees another round of name-matching, policy-hunting, and emergency change windows.
Copilot is different in technology but familiar in distribution logic. Microsoft does not need every user to buy an AI product in a clean contest against rivals. It needs Copilot to become the expected AI layer inside the productivity suite that already owns the workday. Once that happens, competitors are not merely selling a better chatbot or assistant; they are asking customers to swim upstream against defaults, identity integration, data connectors, licensing bundles, and user habit.
That is why the Italy probe matters even to enterprise readers who do not buy consumer Microsoft 365 subscriptions. The regulatory question is not only “Did Microsoft disclose a price increase properly?” It is whether AI features can be folded into dominant software bundles in ways that make refusal impractical. The same question appears in enterprise form when an app arrives through Office servicing unless administrators opt out in time.
Microsoft would argue that integration is the product. Customers do not want a pile of disconnected AI tools; they want assistance inside Word, Excel, Outlook, Teams, SharePoint, and the browser. That argument has merit. The best enterprise AI experiences will be contextual, permission-aware, and close to where work happens.
But integration and coercion are not synonyms. Microsoft can build Copilot deeply into Microsoft 365 while still making deployment a clear administrative choice. The decision to default toward installation is not a technical necessity. It is a growth strategy.
That sounds straightforward until it meets real estates. Many organizations have mixed Windows 10 and Windows 11 fleets, multiple Microsoft 365 Apps channels, remote devices, stale management agents, acquired tenants, and exception groups no one has audited recently. Copilot’s rollout will expose that administrative entropy.
The best-run environments will treat this as a change event even if Microsoft does not. They will decide whether the app is approved, block or allow it deliberately, communicate to users, and document the difference between Microsoft 365 Copilot, Copilot Chat, consumer Copilot, and in-app Copilot controls. They will also revisit permissions because Copilot’s real risk is downstream of what users can already reach.
The less mature environments will discover the rollout socially. A user will see an icon. A manager will ask if the company now has Copilot. A security lead will ask whether data was reviewed. An admin will search for a policy. That is precisely the kind of operational scramble enterprise defaults are supposed to avoid.
Microsoft Turns Office Updates Into an AI Distribution Rail
The most important fact about this rollout is not that Copilot is arriving. It is how Copilot is arriving.Microsoft is using the Microsoft 365 Apps update mechanism rather than the more familiar consumer pathways of the Microsoft Store or Windows Update. That matters because Office Click-to-Run is not a decorative updater. It is the plumbing by which Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Teams stay patched, licensed, and feature-current across millions of commercial endpoints.
That gives Microsoft a powerful advantage. Organizations that have invested years in taming Windows Update rings, Store app restrictions, and endpoint application control may discover that their controls do not neatly map onto the Office servicing channel. A new AI hub can appear as part of the productivity suite’s normal servicing stream, not as a standalone software deployment event that triggers the same approval workflow as a third-party application.
This is the kernel of the controversy. Microsoft can argue that the Microsoft 365 Copilot app is part of the Microsoft 365 experience and therefore belongs in the Microsoft 365 servicing flow. Administrators can argue, just as reasonably, that an AI application surfaced to users, pinned into workflows, and connected to organizational identity is new software that deserves explicit change approval.
Those positions are not technical opposites. They are governance opposites.
The App Is a Front Door, Not Just Another Icon
Microsoft’s naming strategy has made this harder than it needs to be. “Copilot” now describes a consumer chatbot, a Windows feature, a Microsoft 365 work assistant, a chat experience, a developer tool, and a growing class of agentic features. That semantic fog benefits Microsoft because objections to one Copilot can be waved away as misunderstandings about another.The app at issue here is the Microsoft 365 Copilot app on commercial Windows devices. It is the work-focused hub that ties into a user’s Microsoft 365 environment and points them toward AI features across documents, mail, meetings, spreadsheets, presentations, and enterprise search. For licensed users, that means a user-facing doorway into organizational content through Microsoft Graph and Microsoft’s AI services.
That does not automatically mean data is being misused. Microsoft’s enterprise pitch is built around tenant boundaries, permissions, identity, compliance, and the promise that customer data is not used to train foundation models. In many organizations, those assurances are meaningful and contractually important.
But the presence of those controls does not erase the deployment problem. An AI app that can reason over what a user is already allowed to access changes the blast radius of sloppy permissions, forgotten SharePoint sites, over-broad Teams membership, and decades of “everyone except external users” convenience. Copilot does not create bad information governance, but it can make bad information governance suddenly visible, searchable, and operationally painful.
That is why many IT teams object to default installation even when they are not anti-AI. They want Copilot introduced after license planning, permission reviews, data classification work, user training, and help-desk preparation. Microsoft’s default posture reverses that order: put the entry point in front of users first, let administrators catch up later.
The EEA Carve-Out Says the Quiet Part Out Loud
The European Economic Area exemption is the tell. Microsoft is not applying the same automatic installation behavior to EEA devices, and that fact does more to explain the rollout than any marketing line about simplifying access.Europe’s Digital Markets Act has made pre-installation, bundling, and user choice central issues for designated gatekeepers. Microsoft has already had to adjust parts of its European software strategy under regulatory pressure, including how it packages Teams with Microsoft 365. In that context, declining to push the Copilot app automatically in the EEA looks less like a courtesy and more like a legal risk calculation.
Outside the EEA, Microsoft is making a different calculation. In the United States, Canada, Australia, much of Asia, Latin America, and other markets, enterprise customers may complain loudly, but the regulatory framework is less prescriptive about whether a platform owner can add a first-party app through an existing commercial suite. Microsoft is betting that contractual admin controls and post hoc opt-outs will be enough.
That creates an uncomfortable split-screen reality. European users are treated as needing a clearer choice because law requires it. Many non-European enterprises are treated as having already consented by virtue of running Microsoft 365 Apps.
For global administrators, this is not just a philosophical irritation. It means the same tenant estate may behave differently based on geography, channel, licensing, device registration, and update timing. The burden of understanding those distinctions falls on IT, not on the vendor that created them.
Italy’s Probe Moves the Fight From Admin Consoles to Regulators
Italy’s competition authority opened a formal investigation into Microsoft over alleged unfair commercial practices tied to Microsoft 365 subscription changes, AI integration, and price increases. The case is not identical to the enterprise auto-install issue, but it rhymes with it loudly.The Italian concern is about whether consumers were adequately informed that Microsoft 365 had been integrated with Copilot and Designer, and whether price increases were communicated in a way that gave users a meaningful chance to understand or reject the AI-linked bundle. Microsoft says it will cooperate, and an investigation is not a finding of wrongdoing. Still, the direction of travel is clear: regulators are beginning to treat AI bundling as a consumer and competition issue, not merely a product roadmap.
That matters because Microsoft’s AI strategy depends on collapsing distribution friction. If Copilot has to be discovered, evaluated, procured, deployed, trained, and justified like a normal enterprise product, adoption will be slower and more uneven. If it appears inside the applications and subscriptions customers already use, Microsoft gets reach first and debate second.
The same pattern runs through the enterprise rollout. Microsoft’s framing is convenience: users get easier access to productivity-enhancing features. The administrator’s counter-frame is consent: a managed endpoint should not receive a new AI surface merely because the vendor controls a servicing channel.
Italy’s investigation will not decide whether an American sysadmin wakes up to a new Copilot icon in July. But it strengthens the broader argument that AI bundling is becoming a competition-policy issue. The more Microsoft makes Copilot inseparable from Microsoft 365, the more regulators will ask whether competitors ever had a fair chance to be chosen.
The April Concession Did Not Settle the June Rollout
Part of the frustration comes from whiplash. Microsoft has already faced backlash over forced or semi-forced Copilot surfaces, and earlier this year it gave administrators and users more visible controls for removing certain Copilot experiences. Many IT teams reasonably believed the company had absorbed the lesson.The June rollout shows that the lesson was narrower. Microsoft can make one Copilot app removable while distributing another through a different channel. It can provide a policy for a consumer-facing Windows component while preserving a separate Microsoft 365 Apps pathway for the enterprise hub. It can say “control” and still make the default “installed.”
This is a familiar Microsoft maneuver. The company rarely removes administrator controls entirely; instead, it changes the default, moves the control surface, or splits the product into enough similarly named pieces that blocking one does not block another. That is survivable for large enterprises with dedicated Microsoft 365 engineers. It is punishing for small IT teams, MSPs, and regulated organizations that have to translate product taxonomy into enforceable policy quickly.
The practical result is predictable. Some organizations will block the install in time. Some will discover it after users ask what Copilot is. Some will remove the app but miss the policy that prevents reinstallation. Some will disable the hub while leaving in-app Copilot entry points untouched. The confusion is not accidental damage; it is the cost of Microsoft turning Copilot into an ambient layer rather than a discrete product.
Enterprise IT Sees Risk Where Microsoft Sees Activation
Microsoft’s defense is easy to understand. The company has invested heavily in generative AI and needs Microsoft 365 Copilot to become habitual, not occasional. A product that sits behind procurement gates and admin-led pilots will grow more slowly than one that appears where users already work.But enterprise IT does not evaluate software solely by its vendor’s ambition. It evaluates software by operational risk, compliance exposure, support cost, user confusion, procurement alignment, and reversibility. On those measures, automatic installation is a poor fit for many organizations.
The biggest issue is not that Copilot will immediately leak secrets. The bigger issue is that it changes user expectations before the organization has decided what AI use should look like. A user who sees Copilot in the Start menu may assume it is approved. A manager may ask why the company is “not using the AI we already have.” A department may start budgeting around features legal or compliance has not cleared.
Then there is the help-desk effect. Users without the right licenses or permissions may encounter prompts, dead ends, or upsell language. In a large company, even a small percentage of confused users can become a measurable ticket spike. In an MSP environment, that spike becomes customer-facing labor created by a vendor default.
Security teams have their own concern: discoverability. Copilot-style tools reward clean permissions, well-labeled data, and disciplined lifecycle management. Many organizations do not have those things. They have inherited file shares, abandoned teams, stale groups, and sensitive content that is technically permissioned but culturally forgotten. AI does not need to breach the perimeter to cause trouble if the perimeter has been badly drawn for years.
The Controls Exist, but Timing Is the Trap
Microsoft is not leaving administrators with no recourse. There are controls in the Microsoft 365 Apps admin experience, Group Policy, Intune, Cloud Policy, deployment configuration, and registry-based management. For enterprises with mature endpoint governance, the rollout can be blocked.The problem is that these controls must be discovered, understood, and applied before the relevant update wave reaches devices. A policy applied after installation may prevent recurrence without undoing what has already happened. Manual removal can clean up the visible app, but without the right block in place, future servicing may bring it back.
That distinction is crucial. Microsoft’s policy model often assumes administrators are continuously watching Message Center posts, roadmap changes, admin center toggles, and servicing documentation. Many are, but many are not. The company’s customers include hospitals, schools, regional governments, small manufacturers, law firms, nonprofits, and businesses where “Microsoft 365 admin” is one responsibility among twenty.
This is where Microsoft’s argument about manageability starts to fray. A setting that exists somewhere is not the same as consent. A toggle buried in a specialized admin portal is not the same as an opt-in deployment. A 24-hour propagation window is not the same as an approval process.
If Microsoft believes Copilot is enterprise software, it should behave like enterprise software. That means giving administrators a default-deny posture for new AI surfaces, or at minimum a tenant-level “do not introduce new AI apps without explicit approval” control that applies across Copilot’s many identities. Anything less guarantees another round of name-matching, policy-hunting, and emergency change windows.
Microsoft’s Bundling Habit Has Entered Its AI Phase
The deeper story is that Copilot is becoming the new expression of an old Microsoft instinct. The company has always understood the strategic power of bundling. Windows made Internet Explorer unavoidable. Office made collaboration formats sticky. Microsoft 365 made Teams a default meeting layer until regulators and rivals forced a rethink in some markets.Copilot is different in technology but familiar in distribution logic. Microsoft does not need every user to buy an AI product in a clean contest against rivals. It needs Copilot to become the expected AI layer inside the productivity suite that already owns the workday. Once that happens, competitors are not merely selling a better chatbot or assistant; they are asking customers to swim upstream against defaults, identity integration, data connectors, licensing bundles, and user habit.
That is why the Italy probe matters even to enterprise readers who do not buy consumer Microsoft 365 subscriptions. The regulatory question is not only “Did Microsoft disclose a price increase properly?” It is whether AI features can be folded into dominant software bundles in ways that make refusal impractical. The same question appears in enterprise form when an app arrives through Office servicing unless administrators opt out in time.
Microsoft would argue that integration is the product. Customers do not want a pile of disconnected AI tools; they want assistance inside Word, Excel, Outlook, Teams, SharePoint, and the browser. That argument has merit. The best enterprise AI experiences will be contextual, permission-aware, and close to where work happens.
But integration and coercion are not synonyms. Microsoft can build Copilot deeply into Microsoft 365 while still making deployment a clear administrative choice. The decision to default toward installation is not a technical necessity. It is a growth strategy.
The July Window Leaves Administrators With an Unwelcome Checklist
The immediate task for IT teams is less grand than the policy debate. They need to know whether they are in scope, which update channel their devices use, whether EEA exemptions apply, which controls are active, and whether existing software inventory can detect the app.That sounds straightforward until it meets real estates. Many organizations have mixed Windows 10 and Windows 11 fleets, multiple Microsoft 365 Apps channels, remote devices, stale management agents, acquired tenants, and exception groups no one has audited recently. Copilot’s rollout will expose that administrative entropy.
The best-run environments will treat this as a change event even if Microsoft does not. They will decide whether the app is approved, block or allow it deliberately, communicate to users, and document the difference between Microsoft 365 Copilot, Copilot Chat, consumer Copilot, and in-app Copilot controls. They will also revisit permissions because Copilot’s real risk is downstream of what users can already reach.
The less mature environments will discover the rollout socially. A user will see an icon. A manager will ask if the company now has Copilot. A security lead will ask whether data was reviewed. An admin will search for a policy. That is precisely the kind of operational scramble enterprise defaults are supposed to avoid.
The Copilot Rollout Reduces Choice to a Race Against the Update Channel
The concrete lesson from this episode is that Microsoft’s AI ambitions now move through the same channels administrators depend on for routine productivity maintenance. That makes the controls real, but it also makes timing unforgiving.- Organizations outside the European Economic Area should assume eligible commercial Windows devices may receive the Microsoft 365 Copilot app through Microsoft 365 Apps servicing unless a block is already in place.
- Blocking the consumer Copilot app or removing a Windows Copilot surface does not necessarily block the Microsoft 365 Copilot app.
- Removing the installed hub app is not the same as disabling Copilot experiences inside individual Microsoft 365 applications.
- The EEA exemption suggests Microsoft understands that automatic AI installation carries regulatory risk where user-choice rules are stronger.
- Italy’s investigation is formally about Microsoft 365 pricing and disclosure, but it belongs to the same broader fight over whether AI features are being offered or imposed.
- IT teams should treat Copilot deployment as a governance project, not a cosmetic Start menu change.
References
- Primary source: Tech Times
Published: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 19:11:39 GMT
Loading…
www.techtimes.com - Related coverage: investing.com
Italy regulator probes Microsoft over ’Microsoft 365’ price hike By Reuters
Italy regulator probes Microsoft over ’Microsoft 365’ price hikewww.investing.com - Official source: learn.microsoft.com
Loading…
learn.microsoft.com - Related coverage: antitrust-intelligence.com
Italy Investigates Microsoft Over Automated Copilot Subscription Price Hikes – Antitrust Intelligence
The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) has launched a formal investigation into Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. and Microsoft S.r.l. over alleged unfair and aggressive commercial practices regarding price increases for itsantitrust-intelligence.com - Related coverage: marketscreener.com
Loading…
www.marketscreener.com - Official source: support.microsoft.com
How to find and enable missing Copilot button in Microsoft 365 apps - Microsoft Support
Things to try if you've purchased Copilot but don't yet see it in your Microsoft 365 apps.support.microsoft.com
- Related coverage: endpointweekly.com
Loading…
endpointweekly.com - Related coverage: notebookcheck.net
Microsoft Copilot is (once again) being installed automatically, but not on all Windows 11 PCs - Notebookcheck News
The Microsoft 365 Copilot AI chatbot is once again being forcibly installed on millions of Windows 11 computers. For now, at least, Microsoft is sparing users in the EU, likely due to competition law.
www.notebookcheck.net
- Related coverage: theregister.com
Loading…
www.theregister.com - Related coverage: dday.it
Loading…
www.dday.it - Related coverage: techrepublic.com
Loading…
www.techrepublic.com - Related coverage: windowscentral.com
Microsoft 365 is paywalling most of Copilot in its Office apps | Windows Central
Commercial customers will soon need a Microsoft 365 Copilot license to use Copilot Chat in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote.www.windowscentral.com - Related coverage: techradar.com
Microsoft 365 Copilot will be automatically installed on 365 Clients in October | TechRadar
Microsoft is pushing the Copilot app on more userswww.techradar.com - Related coverage: spscc.edu
- Official source: techcommunity.microsoft.com
- Official source: microsoft.com
</rdf:Alt> </dc:title> <dc:description> <rdf:Alt> <rdf:li xml:lang="x-default"/> </rdf:Alt> </dc:description> <dc:creator> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>Lukas V
</rdf:Alt> </dc:description> <dc:creator> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>Lukas Velushwww.microsoft.com