Microsoft’s modern identity crisis is not a single bug or a bad quarter; it’s a pattern of choices that trade day‑to‑day reliability and clear product value for headline‑chasing AI experiments, confusing monetization moves, and hardware gambits that look rushed to market. The MakeUseOf critique that “Microsoft’s biggest problem in 2025 is… Microsoft” captures an anxious through‑line: users are losing faith because the company keeps layering new, flashy features on top of an OS and ecosystem that still suffers from regressions, opaque defaults, and pricing decisions that feel tone‑deaf. The complaint is not anti‑AI — it’s that Microsoft appears to be using AI as a distraction rather than a solution, while core issues (performance, update quality, predictable policies) remain only partially addressed.
Background
Windows, Xbox, Surface and Microsoft’s AI bets have always been tightly coupled: the OS drives hardware sales and developer ecosystems; Xbox drives consumer sentiment and media; the cloud funds platform ambitions and now AI. That interconnectedness is why a misstep on one axis — say, a poorly tested Windows update — ripples into trust for Copilot features, hardware initiatives like Copilot+ PCs, and even the perceived value of Game Pass.In 2024–2025 Microsoft doubled down on an “AI everywhere” strategy: Copilot branding appears inside system apps, first‑party utilities gain on‑device and cloud AI options, and a new class of Copilot+ machines promises accelerated local AI. At the same time Microsoft navigated big, tangible issues: Windows 10’s end‑of‑support transition, recurring update regressions and quality‑of‑service complaints, Game Pass price and tier changes, and multiple rounds of workforce reductions that hit Xbox studios and related teams. The tension between long‑running reliability needs and the urgency to monetize AI is the structural context behind many user complaints.
What’s broken in the day‑to‑day Windows experience
File Explorer, Task Manager and reliability regressions
For many longtime Windows users, the most visceral problems are the ones you encounter every day: slow or inconsistent File Explorer behavior, UI regressions, and oddities in basic tools like Task Manager. Microsoft has publicly acknowledged and tracked several File Explorer issues in update notes and Insider posts; engineers are testing a preloading behavior for File Explorer in preview builds to make cold launches faster — a workaround that demonstrates how the company is prioritizing user‑perceived responsiveness even when the root cause remains complex. Reports and testing coverage show Microsoft adding an “enable window preloading for faster launch times” option in preview builds to mitigate slow cold starts. That kind of preloading can help perceived performance, but it’s a symptom‑level mitigation: users rightly ask why core content rendering and folder indexing choke in the first place. Microsoft’s own update and preview notes show a steady stream of specific fixes for File Explorer (context menu toggles, Home view bugs, preview pane regressions), which is good — but the cadence of fixes and new regressions has trained a lot of power users to expect instability after feature updates. Microsoft has documented fixes in cumulative and preview KB articles; these support pages and Insider notes are explicit about both the problems and the applied mitigations. Task Manager oddities — for example, inconsistent close/terminate behaviors or task grouping anomalies — have appeared as isolated yet embarrassing interface bugs in multiple builds. Microsoft’s release notes and community threads both record such issues, and the company has issued fixes in later cumulative preview updates, but the recurrence of small, highly visible UI regressions fuels the perception that QA and release engineering haven’t fully kept pace with a continuous‑delivery model for a desktop OS. Why this matters: when low‑friction operations (open folder, close a window, switch apps) fail or slow down, the OS stops being an invisible platform and starts being a source of frustration. Users notice the small things every day; they do not forget.Quality of updates and communications
Microsoft’s Release Health and KB pages now routinely include detailed known‑issue entries and workarounds, but the problem is not only the bugs — it’s timing and messaging. Users expect a high bar for a mature OS: reasonable canary testing, transparent timelines for fixes, and rollback options that are clear for non‑enterprise users. When fixes arrive piecemeal (or regressions slip into broadly released builds), public faith erodes faster than engineering can rebuild it. Several community‑facing posts collected in our dataset emphasize the same checklist: better release engineering, measurable reliability targets, and safer opt‑ins for major platform changes.Copilot: innovation or distraction?
Copilot is everywhere — and that is the point of contention
Microsoft’s strategy has been explicit: embed Copilot into the OS and apps (Edge, Notepad, Paint, Photos, and more) so AI becomes a ubiquitous helper. Notepad, for example, now contains an on‑device and cloud‑backed Copilot button that exposes rewrite, summarize and explain workflows; Microsoft positions this as convenience and productivity enhancement, and in some Copilot+ configurations the model can run on‑device with no subscription required. Coverage from multiple outlets documents these changes and Microsoft’s communications about hybrid local/cloud models. But ubiquity has a cost. When an OS integrates a nearly omnipresent assistant, trust, opt‑in clarity, and privacy controls become not incidental but central product requirements. The Recall feature controversy — where Copilot‑adjacent functionality attempted continuous, local screenshots to enable “search everything I’ve done” — made this painfully obvious. Privacy‑minded apps and browser vendors blocked the Recall behavior, while the public outcry forced Microsoft to pause and rework the feature. That backlash is a concrete lesson: technical capability does not equate to product readiness, and any feature that captures user context must be designed around explicit user consent, audit trails and enterprise governance.Trust, telemetry and gated features
Two recurring complaints are (1) opt‑out complexity for telemetry and first‑party promotions, and (2) gating of AI features behind Microsoft accounts or paid subscriptions. Microsoft offers settings to disable many Copilot features, and some AI experiences can run locally on Copilot+ PCs without cloud credits. But the default path remains — for many users — cloud‑assisted Copilot features that require sign‑in and sometimes a paid tier. That tension — optionality versus the economics of data and compute — is fundamental. Users mistrust black‑box features that are enabled by default or that require broad telemetry; enterprises worry about auditability and reproducibility when an “agentic” OS can act on behalf of a user.The “agentic OS” messaging problem
When a senior Windows executive framed the roadmap using the term “agentic,” the reaction was predictably mixed. Many users read “agentic OS” as shorthand for an OS that will act for you — a promise that amplifies privacy and control fears if not accompanied by clear policy, logs, and per‑action opt‑outs. Tech commentary and social responses made it clear that language matters: ambitious AI narratives without commensurate governance and controls feel out of touch. Microsoft’s public messaging needs to be matched with concrete governance controls for both consumers and administrators.Gaming and Xbox: identity, price, and layoffs
Game Pass: value compresses as prices rise
Game Pass transformed Xbox’s narrative in the late 2010s and early 2020s; it was widely celebrated as one of the best consumer deals in gaming. But price changes and tier restructuring in 2024–2025 altered that value proposition for many customers. Microsoft reorganized tiers and raised prices across several markets — moves that were widely covered and criticized by consumer advocates and regulators. The FTC and multiple gaming outlets criticized the new tier structure and changes that shifted day‑one access toward premium levels, reducing the “all‑you‑can‑play” promise for lower tiers. The perception that the service is becoming more expensive and less straightforward undercuts the loyalty that made Game Pass so compelling. Caveat: reporting on exact price changes and which regional subscribers remain grandfathered has evolved and varies by region and currency; Microsoft has granted temporary exceptions in some countries and clarified grandfathering policies for existing subscribers in certain markets. Readers should check their subscription details for the precise billing impact.Xbox’s identity and layoffs
Xbox historically meant console hardware, first‑party games, and multiplayer services. In 2025 that simple identity has splintered: Xbox now spans publishing, subscription services, hardware partners, and cloud gaming. Multiple rounds of layoffs, cancellations of high‑profile projects, and studio closures have fueled doubts about strategic direction. Recent company announcements and reputable reports show substantial workforce reductions that affected Xbox and adjacent studios; company memos framed these cuts as organizational streamlining but the net effect is uncertainty for first‑party output and morale. Why this matters for Windows users: Xbox’s choices inform partnership deals, PC ports, anti‑cheat policies, and the value proposition of Game Pass on Windows. If the Xbox portfolio looks constrained or its subscription tiers are less attractive, some users will re‑evaluate where they spend gaming dollars — and Microsoft’s long game of “Xbox + Windows + Cloud” relies on a coherent value path across all those touchpoints.Hardware — Surface and Copilot+ PCs
Surface’s ARM pivot and the Copilot+ pitch
Microsoft’s Surface line now includes more ARM‑based models powered by Qualcomm platforms; leaked and official product coverage shows Microsoft betting on Snapdragon‑class chips (Snapdragon X Elite/X Plus) as the on‑device NPU and battery‑life play for Copilot+ scenarios. Early reviews and spec sheets show real gains in power‑efficiency and strong NPU capabilities, but the classic Windows‑on‑ARM problem remains: app compatibility and a smooth emulation layer are still variable. Apple’s vertical integration contrast (smooth M‑series transition) looms large in user comparisons. Designers and product managers have aimed to make Copilot+ machines the place where on‑device AI removes latency and reduces cloud costs. But this hardware‑led segmentation risks fragmenting Windows experiences: who gets the best AI features — and at what price? There’s a real risk of creating a two‑tier Windows world where older machines are left behind or forced into a degraded experience unless Microsoft is very careful with feature fallbacks and policy controls.Real‑world compatibility concerns
The rollout of ARM‑first Surface devices has highlighted compatibility gaps for legacy apps and professional workflows. That’s expected in any architecture transition, but the speed of marketing and the expectation that Copilot+ will instantly solve all user problems created unrealistic expectations. Microsoft needs to provide clearer migration tools, robust emulation performance tuning, and explicit compatibility shims for enterprise SDKs — not just marketing collateral.Linux, Proton and shifting platform options
An important competitive dynamic is Linux’s improved viability for gaming: Valve’s Proton, DXVK and related tooling have steadily improved compatibility and performance, and some community and benchmark reports show cases where Linux builds — using Vulkan translation layers — deliver equal or slightly better frame rates for particular titles. This progress matters because it reduces the lock‑in advantage Windows once held for gaming, especially on machines where Steam’s compatibility stack is mature. Proton and Vulkan‑based translation layers have improved in leaps and bounds; Valve’s SteamOS strategy and the popularity of Steam Deck have accelerated tooling that makes gaming on Linux increasingly practical. If Microsoft continues to weaken the day‑one Game Pass promise or alienate core PC gamers, more users may experiment with Linux-based alternatives. The broader implication: Windows’ dominance is durable, but it is not invulnerable to well‑targeted technical and ecosystem competition. Caveat: anti‑cheat and DRM remain the big technical blockers for many competitive titles; those systems are often Windows‑specific, which preserves Microsoft’s advantage in certain genres and online ecosystems.Business and governance: a balance Microsoft must find
- Prioritize reliability metrics publicly. Microsoft should publish measurable reliability targets: reduced regression incidents per release, median time to rollback, and target percentages for canary success. Public roadmaps tied to measurable QA investment will rebuild trust faster than marketing copy.
- Treat agentic features as enterprise‑grade first. Any feature that acts autonomously across local files or network services must be opt‑in with per‑action consent, audit logs, and enterprise policy surfaces. Recall’s public backlash showed that privacy engineering can’t be an afterthought.
- Unbundle opaque promotions and make opt‑out frictionless. First‑party promotional surfaces, account gating, and hard defaults that favor paid tiers have become trust erosions. Make opt‑out immediate and persistent across upgrades.
- Stabilize pricing and tier expectations for core services. Game Pass reconfiguration and price rises need clearer grandfathering and communication. Microsoft should align packaging decisions with long‑term content plans (first‑party release cadence) or risk commoditizing consumer goodwill.
- Invest in compatibility and migration tooling for ARM. If Copilot+ and ARM are the future, Microsoft must fund robust emulation, developer SDKs, and migration assistance to avoid repeating the Windows RT / Windows on ARM stumbles of the past.
Strengths Microsoft still owns — and must protect
- Ubiquity and ecosystem lock‑in: enterprise tooling, management planes (Intune, Group Policy), and a huge ISV ecosystem remain Microsoft’s strongest competitive advantages. Rebuilding user trust around stability protects this moat.
- Integrated stack: owning the OS, productivity apps and a major cloud gives Microsoft one of the best positions to deliver end‑to‑end AI experiences — if done transparently and reliably.
- Hardware reach and developer tools: Surface prototypes and WSL investments matter; keep the developer story simple and stable.
What the MakeUseOf critique gets right — and where it overreaches
- Right: The article’s core intuition — that Microsoft is over‑prioritizing AI buzz and under‑delivering on stability and usability — is supported by a pattern of user complaints, fix cycles in KB notes, and high‑profile backlash around features like Recall. Those are not isolated grievances; they’re signals of a governance problem.
- Right: Xbox’s identity confusion and the perceptual downgrade of Game Pass value are real pain points for many gamers and are backed by price restructuring and multiple studio workforce changes.
- Where it overreaches: Some phrases — like calling Copilot “nobody asked for it” or saying Game Pass was “almost doubling” in a blanket way — simplify complex, region‑dependent realities. Microsoft did increase prices and restructure tiers; however, the precise impact varies by region and subscriber status (grandfathered or not), and not every price move was a straight doubling. The MakeUseOf critique is valuable as a sentiment capture, but some numeric claims need nuance and precise dates to be reliable. Readers should treat sweeping price‑or‑performance claims cautiously and check their local billing notices.
Final verdict — how Microsoft can stop losing on trust
Microsoft can recapture its credibility by doing three things consistently: (1) ship fewer headline features and more polished core fixes; (2) make AI features explicitly opt‑in with strong auditability, local modes and clear enterprise controls; and (3) align monetization with perceived value rather than forced tiering and surprise price moves.AI is a legitimately transformative technology for productivity and system assistance, but it’s not a substitute for a stable OS. Copilot should amplify the Windows experience, not feign as its core purpose while fundamental platform quality slips. Microsoft still has the resources, engineering talent and market position to get this right. The question is whether the company will recalibrate priorities toward day‑to‑day user value — reliable File Explorer and Task Manager behavior, predictable updates, clear privacy defaults — before loyalty erodes further. If Microsoft does that, its AI ambitions will land on firmer ground. If it doesn’t, the MakeUseOf lament will prove prescient: Microsoft’s biggest problem in 2025 isn’t a competitor — it’s losing track of what made its products great in the first place.
Short checklist for users and IT leaders (practical steps)
- Back up and image before major upgrades; delay non‑critical feature updates for 2–4 weeks and watch community Release Health discussions.
- Treat built‑in AI features as optional: review Copilot/AI toggles, disable Recall‑style features unless you fully accept the tradeoffs.
- For enterprises: use phased deployment rings and Known Issue Rollback; audit which devices qualify for Windows 11 before broad migrations ahead of Windows 10 EOL. Microsoft’s official lifecycle pages list October 14, 2025 as the end‑of‑support date for Windows 10 — plan accordingly.
Source: MakeUseOf Microsoft’s biggest problem in 2025 is... Microsoft
