It also restricted Microsoft from "partnering" with anyone else. Wouldn't be surprised if we see another news like Amazon, Alphabet investing in Anthropic.

I don't think Microsoft ever had that restriction. They partnered with everyone already.

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/11/18/microsoft-nvidia...

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/deepseek-r1-is-now-av...

https://ai.azure.com/

Also Mistral e.g. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/microsoft-and-mistral...

AFAICT they are just hedging their bets left and right still. Also feels like they are winning in the sense that despite pretty much all those products being roughly equivalent... they are still running on their cloud, Azure. So even though they seem unable to capture IP anymore, they are still managing to get paid for managing the infrastructure.

Are they getting paid in actual money? Or are the AI companies "paying" their infrastructure bills with IOU/equity.

Those companies are so advanced they get paid in the promise of future tokens. /$

They had it till October: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/10/28/the-next-chapter...

Yeah my bad, I was misremembering, it was about investing in others and pursuing its own "AGI" efforts. But even those conditions were updated over the last two years, hence the small investment in Anthropic last year.

I think it was a lot less restrictive, as far as I understood, the only limit was Microsoft not being allowed to launch competing Microsoft-developed LLMs.

They were paying them 20% of the revenue from the hosted OpenAI products I believe?

Does this mean they will host OpenAI products but not pay them? Or does it mean they are paying them in some other way?

It seems that the old deal was exclusivity to MSFT with revenue share, and now no exclusivity, no revenue share.

Bear in mind that MSFT have rights to OpenAI IP (as well as owning ~30% of them). The only reason they were giving revenue share was in return for exclusivity.

This is a really common way to structure exclusivity; we did the same thing whenever customers requested it (and we couldn’t get rid of it entirely). Charge for the exclusivity explicitly.

If they wanted named exclusivity rather than general exclusivity, we would charge a somewhat smaller amount for each competitor they wanted exclusivity from. They could give up exclusivity at any time.

That was precisely how we structured our deal with Azure, back in 2014-2016 or so.

Azure was the only non-OpenAI provider that was allowed to provide OpenAI models. The comparison here is with Anthropic whose models are on both GCP and AWS (and technically also Azure though I think that might just be billing passthrough to Anthropic).

I suppose continue to host until the 2030/32 that they have access to but not share revenues when they use those models for their products like the bazillions of Copilots.

That's the last round they raised at. They had other offers from VCs at ~850B they rejected. Seems like may have been in works since that last round was being raised and just finished paperwork?

You have to use the "agent" toggle for Copilot to behave the same way lol. Otherwise its pretty simple chat interface with the context, that's all.

Not OP, but I have used iptvore[dot]net previously

It's just one brand: Copilot

That's pretty sweet upgrade!

Seems fine to me for the consumer facing product terms lol

Have you met kids? They’re devious, tech knowledgeable, and scheming and can find ways around any rule. Plus, no matter how good of a parent you are, you’re somewhat at the mercy of their friends’ parents as well. I can block TikTok from my daughter’s phone, but can’t block her from watching her friend’s phone while she’s out of the house.

I dont think parents going up against psychologists, data scientists, product managers and software engineers with the best pay in the world is any kind of fair fight.