microsoft

there’s-a-rash-of-scam-spam-coming-from-a-real-microsoft-address

There’s a rash of scam spam coming from a real Microsoft address

There are reports that a legitimate Microsoft email address—which Microsoft explicitly says customers should add to their allow list—is delivering scam spam.

The emails originate from [email protected], an address tied to Power BI. The Microsoft platform provides analytics and business intelligence from various sources that can be integrated into a single dashboard. Microsoft documentation says that the address is used to send subscription emails to mail-enabled security groups. To prevent spam filters from blocking the address, the company advises users to add it to allow lists.

From Microsoft, with malice

According to an Ars reader, the address on Tuesday sent her an email claiming (falsely) that a $399 charge had been made to her. It provided a phone number to call to dispute the transaction. A man who answered a call asking to cancel the sale directed me to download and install a remote access application, presumably so he could then take control of my Mac or Windows machine (Linux wasn’t allowed). The email, captured in the two screenshots below, looked like this:

Online searches returned a dozen or so accounts of other people reporting receiving the same email. Some of the spam was reported on Microsoft’s own website.

Sarah Sabotka, a threat researcher at security firm Proofpoint, said the scammers are abusing a Power Bi function that allows external email addresses to be added as subscribers for the Power Bi reports. The mention of the subscription is buried at the very bottom of the message, where it’s easy to miss. The researcher explained:

There’s a rash of scam spam coming from a real Microsoft address Read More »

why-has-microsoft-been-routing-example.com-traffic-to-a-company-in-japan?

Why has Microsoft been routing example.com traffic to a company in Japan?

From the Department of Bizarre Anomalies: Microsoft has suppressed an unexplained anomaly on its network that was routing traffic destined to example.com—a domain reserved for testing purposes—to a maker of electronics cables located in Japan.

Under the RFC2606—an official standard maintained by the Internet Engineering Task Force—example.com isn’t obtainable by any party. Instead it resolves to IP addresses assigned to Internet Assiged Names Authority. The designation is intended to prevent third parties from being bombarded with traffic when developers, penetration testers, and others need a domain for testing or discussing technical issues. Instead of naming an Internet-routable domain, they are to choose example.com or two others, example.net and example.org.

Misconfig gone, but is it fixed?

Output from the terminal command cURL shows that devices inside Azure and other Microsoft networks have been routing some traffic to subdomains of sei.co.jp, a domain belonging to Sumitomo Electric. Most of the resulting text is exactly what’s expected. The exception is the JSON-based response. Here’s the JSON output from Friday:

"email":"[email protected]","services": [],"protocols": [{"protocol":"imap","hostname":"imapgms.jnet.sei.co.jp","port":993,"encryption":"ssl","username":"[email protected]","validated":false},{"protocol":"smtp","hostname":"smtpgms.jnet.sei.co.jp","port":465,"encryption":"ssl","username":"[email protected]","validated":false}]

Similarly, results when adding a new account for [email protected] in Outlook looked like this:

In both cases, the results show that Microsoft was routing email traffic to two sei.co.jp subdomains: imapgms.jnet.sei.co.jp and smtpgms.jnet.sei.co.jp. The behavior was the result of Microsoft’s autodiscover service.

“I’m admittedly not an expert in Microsoft’s internal workings, but this appears to be a simple misconfiguration,” Michael Taggart, a senior cybersecurity researcher at UCLA Health, said. “The result is that anyone who tries to set up an Outlook account on an example.com domain might accidentally send test credentials to those sei.co.jp subdomains.”

When asked early Friday afternoon why Microsoft was doing this, a representative had no answer and asked for more time. By Monday morning, the improper routing was no longer occurring, but the representative still had no answer.

Why has Microsoft been routing example.com traffic to a company in Japan? Read More »

elon-musk-accused-of-making-up-math-to-squeeze-$134b-from-openai,-microsoft

Elon Musk accused of making up math to squeeze $134B from OpenAI, Microsoft


Musk’s math reduced ChatGPT inventors’ contributions to “zero,” OpenAI argued.

Elon Musk is going for some substantial damages in his lawsuit accusing OpenAI of abandoning its nonprofit mission and “making a fool out of him” as an early investor.

On Friday, Musk filed a notice on remedies sought in the lawsuit, confirming that he’s seeking damages between $79 billion and $134 billion from OpenAI and its largest backer, co-defendant Microsoft.

Musk hired an expert he has never used before, C. Paul Wazzan, who reached this estimate by concluding that Musk’s early contributions to OpenAI generated 50 to 75 percent of the nonprofit’s current value. He got there by analyzing four factors: Musk’s total financial contributions before he left OpenAI in 2018, Musk’s proposed equity stake in OpenAI in 2017, Musk’s current equity stake in xAI, and Musk’s nonmonetary contributions to OpenAI (like investing time or lending his reputation).

The eye-popping damage claim shocked OpenAI and Microsoft, which could also face punitive damages in a loss.

The tech giants immediately filed a motion to exclude Wazzan’s opinions, alleging that step was necessary to avoid prejudicing a jury. Their filing claimed that Wazzan’s math seemed “made up,” based on calculations the economics expert testified he’d never used before and allegedly “conjured” just to satisfy Musk.

For example, Wazzan allegedly ignored that Musk left OpenAI after leadership did not agree on how to value Musk’s contributions to the nonprofit. Problematically, Wazzan’s math depends on an imaginary timeline where OpenAI agreed to Musk’s 2017 bid to control 51.2 percent of a new for-profit entity that was then being considered. But that never happened, so it’s unclear why Musk would be owed damages based on a deal that was never struck, OpenAI argues.

It’s also unclear why Musk’s stake in xAI is relevant, since OpenAI is a completely different company not bound to match xAI’s offerings. Wazzan allegedly wasn’t even given access to xAI’s actual numbers to help him with his estimate, only referring to public reporting estimating that Musk owns 53 percent of xAI’s equity. OpenAI accused Wazzan of including the xAI numbers to inflate the total damages to please Musk.

“By all appearances, what Wazzan has done is cherry-pick convenient factors that correspond roughly to the size of the ‘economic interest’ Musk wants to claim, and declare that those factors support Musk’s claim,” OpenAI’s filing said.

Further frustrating OpenAI and Microsoft, Wazzan opined that Musk and xAI should receive the exact same total damages whether they succeed on just one or all of the four claims raised in the lawsuit.

OpenAI and Microsoft are hoping the court will agree that Wazzan’s math is an “unreliable… black box” and exclude his opinions as improperly reliant on calculations that cannot be independently tested.

Microsoft could not be reached for comment, but OpenAI has alleged that Musk’s suit is a harassment campaign aimed at stalling a competitor so that his rival AI firm, xAI, can catch up.

“Musk’s lawsuit continues to be baseless and a part of his ongoing pattern of harassment, and we look forward to demonstrating this at trial,” an OpenAI spokesperson said in a statement provided to Ars. “This latest unserious demand is aimed solely at furthering this harassment campaign. We remain focused on empowering the OpenAI Foundation, which is already one of the best resourced nonprofits ever.”

Only Musk’s contributions counted

Wazzan is “a financial economist with decades of professional and academic experience who has managed his own successful venture capital firm that provided seed-level funding to technology startups,” Musk’s filing said.

OpenAI explained how Musk got connected with Wazzan, who testified that he had never been hired by any of Musk’s companies before. Instead, three months before he submitted his opinions, Wazzan said that Musk’s legal team had reached out to his consulting firm, BRG, and the call was routed to him.

Wazzan’s task was to figure out how much Musk should be owed after investing $38 million in OpenAI—roughly 60 percent of its seed funding. Musk also made nonmonetary contributions Wazzan had to weigh, like “recruiting key employees, introducing business contacts, teaching his cofounders everything he knew about running a successful startup, and lending his prestige and reputation to the venture,” Musk’s filing said.

The “fact pattern” was “pretty unique,” Wazzan testified, while admitting that his calculations weren’t something you’d find “in a textbook.”

Additionally, Wazzan had to factor in Microsoft’s alleged wrongful gains, by deducing how much of Microsoft’s profits went back into funding the nonprofit. Microsoft alleged Wazzan got this estimate wrong after assuming that “some portion of Microsoft’s stake in the OpenAI for-profit entity should flow back to the OpenAI nonprofit” and arbitrarily decided that the portion must be “equal” to “the nonprofit’s stake in the for-profit entity.” With this odd math, Wazzan double-counted value of the nonprofit and inflated Musk’s damages estimate, Microsoft alleged.

“Wazzan offers no rationale—contractual, governance, economic, or otherwise—for reallocating any portion of Microsoft’s negotiated interest to the nonprofit,” OpenAI’s and Microsoft’s filing said.

Perhaps most glaringly, Wazzan reached his opinions without ever weighing the contributions of anyone but Musk, OpenAI alleged. That means that Wazzan’s analysis did not just discount efforts of co-founders and investors like Microsoft, which “invested billions of dollars into OpenAI’s for-profit affiliate in the years after Musk quit.” It also dismissed scientists and programmers who invented ChatGPT as having “contributed zero percent of the nonprofit’s current value,” OpenAI alleged.

“I don’t need to know all the other people,” Wazzan testified.

Musk’s legal team contradicted expert

Wazzan supposedly also did not bother to quantify Musk’s nonmonetary contributions, which could be in the thousands, millions, or billions based on his vague math, OpenAI argued.

Even Musk’s legal team seemed to contradict Wazzan, OpenAI’s filing noted. In Musk’s filing on remedies, it’s acknowledged that the jury may have to adjust the total damages. Because Wazzan does not break down damages by claims and merely assigns the same damages to each individual claim, OpenAI argued it will be impossible for a jury to adjust any of Wazzan’s black box calculations.

“Wazzan’s methodology is made up; his results unverifiable; his approach admittedly unprecedented; and his proposed outcome—the transfer of billions of dollars from a nonprofit corporation to a donor-turned competitor—implausible on its face,” OpenAI argued.

At a trial starting in April, Musk will strive to convince a court that such extraordinary damages are owed. OpenAI hopes he’ll fail, in part since “it is legally impossible for private individuals to hold economic interests in nonprofits” and “Wazzan conceded at deposition that he had no reason to believe Musk ‘expected a financial return when he donated… to OpenAI nonprofit.’”

“Allowing a jury to hear a disgorgement number—particularly one that is untethered to specific alleged wrongful conduct and results in Musk being paid amounts thousands of times greater than his actual donations—risks misleading the jury as to what relief is recoverable and renders the challenged opinions inadmissible,” OpenAI’s filing said.

Wazzan declined to comment. xAI did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Elon Musk accused of making up math to squeeze $134B from OpenAI, Microsoft Read More »

tsmc-says-ai-demand-is-“endless”-after-record-q4-earnings

TSMC says AI demand is “endless” after record Q4 earnings

TSMC posted net income of NT$505.7 billion (about $16 billion) for the quarter, up 35 percent year over year and above analyst expectations. Revenue hit $33.7 billion, a 25.5 percent increase from the same period last year. The company expects nearly 30 percent revenue growth in 2026 and plans to spend between $52 billion and $56 billion on capital expenditures this year, up from $40.9 billion in 2025.

Checking with the customers’ customers

Wei’s optimism stands in contrast to months of speculation about whether the AI industry is in a bubble. In November, Google CEO Sundar Pichai warned of “irrationality” in the AI market and said no company would be immune if a potential bubble bursts. OpenAI’s Sam Altman acknowledged in August that investors are “overexcited” and that “someone” will lose a “phenomenal amount of money.”

But TSMC, which manufactures the chips that power the AI boom, is betting the opposite way, with Wei telling analysts he spoke directly to cloud providers to verify that demand is real before committing to the spending increase.

“I want to make sure that my customers’ demand are real. So I talked to those cloud service providers, all of them,” Wei said. “The answer is that I’m quite satisfied with the answer. Actually, they show me the evidence that the AI really helps their business.”

The earnings report landed the same day the US and Taiwan finalized a trade agreement that cuts tariffs on Taiwanese goods to 15 percent, down from 20 percent. The deal commits Taiwanese companies to $250 billion in direct US investment, and TSMC is accelerating the expansion of its Arizona chip fabrication facilities to match.

TSMC says AI demand is “endless” after record Q4 earnings Read More »

microsoft-vows-to-cover-full-power-costs-for-energy-hungry-ai-data-centers

Microsoft vows to cover full power costs for energy-hungry AI data centers

Taking responsibility for power usage

In the Microsoft blog post, Smith acknowledged that residential electricity rates have recently risen in dozens of states, driven partly by inflation, supply chain constraints, and grid upgrades. He wrote that communities “value new jobs and property tax revenue, but not if they come with higher power bills or tighter water supplies.”

Microsoft says it will ask utilities and public commissions to set rates high enough to cover the full electricity costs for its data centers, including infrastructure additions. In Wisconsin, the company is supporting a new rate structure that would charge “Very Large Customers,” including data centers, the cost of the electricity required to serve them.

Smith wrote that while some have suggested the public should help pay for the added electricity needed for AI, Microsoft disagrees. He stated, “Especially when tech companies are so profitable, we believe that it’s both unfair and politically unrealistic for our industry to ask the public to shoulder added electricity costs for AI.”

On water usage for cooling, Microsoft plans a 40 percent improvement in data center water-use intensity by 2030. A recent environmental audit from AI model-maker Mistral found that training and running its Large 2 model over 18 months produced 20.4 kilotons of CO2 emissions and evaporated enough water to fill 112 Olympic-size swimming pools, illustrating the aggregate environmental impact of AI operations at scale.

To solve some of these issues, Microsoft says it has launched a new AI data center design using a closed-loop system that constantly recirculates cooling liquid, dramatically cutting water usage. In this design, already deployed in Wisconsin and Georgia, potable water is no longer needed for cooling.

On property taxes, Smith stated in the blog post that the company will not ask local municipalities to reduce their rates. The company says it will pay its full share of local property taxes. Smith wrote that Microsoft’s goal is to bring these commitments to life in the first half of 2026. Of course, these are PR-aligned company goals and not realities yet, so we’ll have to check back in later to see whether Microsoft has been following through on its promises.

Microsoft vows to cover full power costs for energy-hungry AI data centers Read More »

news-orgs-win-fight-to-access-20m-chatgpt-logs-now-they-want-more.

News orgs win fight to access 20M ChatGPT logs. Now they want more.

Describing OpenAI’s alleged “playbook” to dodge copyright claims, news groups accused OpenAI of failing to “take any steps to suspend its routine destruction practices.” There were also “two spikes in mass deletion” that OpenAI attributed to “technical issues.”

However, OpenAI made sure to retain outputs that could help its defense, the court filing alleged, including data from accounts cited in news organizations’ complaints.

OpenAI did not take the same care to preserve chats that could be used as evidence against it, news groups alleged, citing testimony from Mike Trinh, OpenAI’s associate general counsel. “In other words, OpenAI preserved evidence of the News Plaintiffs eliciting their own works from OpenAI’s products but deleted evidence of third-party users doing so,” the filing said.

It’s unclear how much data was deleted, plaintiffs alleged, since OpenAI won’t share “the most basic information” on its deletion practices. But it’s allegedly very clear that OpenAI could have done more to preserve the data, since Microsoft apparently had no trouble doing so with Copilot, the filing said.

News plaintiffs are hoping the court will agree that OpenAI and Microsoft aren’t fighting fair by delaying sharing logs, which they said prevents them from building their strongest case.

They’ve asked the court to order Microsoft to “immediately” produce Copilot logs “in a readily searchable remotely-accessible format,” proposing a deadline of January 9 or “within a day of the Court ruling on this motion.”

Microsoft declined Ars’ request for comment.

And as for OpenAI, it wants to know if the deleted logs, including “mass deletions,” can be retrieved, perhaps bringing millions more ChatGPT conversations into the litigation that users likely expected would never see the light of day again.

On top of possible sanctions, news plaintiffs asked the court to keep in place a preservation order blocking OpenAI from permanently deleting users’ temporary and deleted chats. They also want the court to order OpenAI to explain “the full scope of destroyed output log data for all of its products at issue” in the litigation and whether those deleted chats can be restored, so that news plaintiffs can examine them as evidence, too.

News orgs win fight to access 20M ChatGPT logs. Now they want more. Read More »

remembering-what-windows-10-did-right—and-how-it-made-modern-windows-more-annoying

Remembering what Windows 10 did right—and how it made modern Windows more annoying


Remembering Windows 10’s rollout can help diagnose what ails Windows 11.

If you’ve been following our coverage for the last few years, you’ll already know that 2025 is the year that Windows 10 died. Technically.

“Died,” because Microsoft’s formal end-of-support date came and went on October 14, as the company had been saying for years. “Technically,” because it’s trivial for home users to get another free year of security updates with a few minutes of effort, and schools and businesses can get an additional two years of updates on top of that, and because load-bearing system apps like Edge and Windows Defender will keep getting updates through at least 2028 regardless.

But 2025 was undoubtedly a tipping point for the so-called “last version of Windows.” StatCounter data says Windows 11 has overtaken Windows 10 as the most-used version of Windows both in the US (February 2025) and worldwide (July 2025). Its market share slid from just over 44 percent to just under 31 percent in the Steam Hardware Survey. And now that Microsoft’s support for the OS has formally ended, games, apps, and drivers are already beginning the gradual process of ending or scaling back official Windows 10 support.

Windows 10 is generally thought of as one of the “good” versions of Windows, and it was extremely popular in its heyday: the most widely used version of Windows since XP. That’s true even though many of the annoying things that people complain about in Windows 11 started during the Windows 10 era. Now that it’s time to write Windows 10’s epitaph, it’s worth examining what Microsoft got right with Windows 10, how it laid the groundwork for many of the things people dislike about Windows 11, and how Microsoft has made all of those problems worse in the years since Windows 11 first launched.

Windows 10 did a lot of things right

The Start menu in the first release of Windows 10. Windows 10 got a lot of credit for not being Windows 8 and for rolling back its most visible and polarizing changes.

Like Windows 7, Windows 10’s primary job was to not be its predecessor. Windows 8 brought plenty of solid under-the-hood improvements over Windows 7, but it came with a polarizing full-screen Start menu and a touchscreen-centric user interface that was an awkward fit for traditional desktops and laptops.

And the biggest thing it did to differentiate itself from Windows 8 was restore a version of the traditional Start menu, altered from its Windows XP or Windows 7-era iterations but familiar enough not to put people off.

Windows 10 also adopted a bunch of other things that people seemed to like about their smartphones—it initially rolled out as a free upgrade to anyone already running Windows 7 or Windows 8, and it ran on virtually all the same hardware as those older versions. It was updated on a continuous, predictable cadence that allowed Microsoft to add features more quickly. Microsoft even expanded its public beta program, giving enthusiasts and developers an opportunity to see what was coming and provide feedback before new features were rolled out to everybody.

Windows 10 also hit during a time of change at Microsoft. Current CEO Satya Nadella was just taking over from Steve Ballmer, and as part of that pivot, the company was also doing things like making its Office apps work on iOS and Android and abandoning its struggling, proprietary browser engine for Edge. Nadella’s Microsoft wanted you to be using Microsoft products (and ideally paying for a subscription to do so), but it seemed more willing to meet people where they were rather than forcing them to change their behavior.

That shift continued to benefit users throughout the first few years of Windows 10’s life. Developers benefited from the introduction and continuous improvement of the Windows Subsystem for Linux, a way to run Linux and many of its apps and tools directly on top of Windows. Microsoft eventually threw out its struggling in-house browser engine for a new version of the Edge browser built on Chromium—we can debate whether Chromium’s supremacy is a good thing for an open, standard-compliant Internet, but switching to a more compatible rendering engine and an established extension ecosystem was absolutely the more user-friendly choice. Both projects also signaled Microsoft’s growing engagement with and contributions to open-source projects, something that would have been hard to imagine during the company’s closed-off ’90s and ’00s.

Windows 10 wasn’t perfect; these examples of what it did right are cherry-picked. But part of the operating system’s reputation comes from the fact that it was originally developed as a response to real complaints and rolled out in a way that tried to make its changes and improvements as widely accessible as possible.

But Windows 10 laid the groundwork for Windows 11’s problems

Windows 10 asked you to sign in with a Microsoft account, but for most of the operating system’s life, it was easy to skip this using visible buttons in the UI. Windows 10 began locking this down in later versions; that has continued in Windows 11, but it didn’t originate there. Credit: BTNHD

As many things as Windows 10 did relatively well, most of the things people claim to find objectionable about Windows 11 actually started happening during the Windows 10 era.

Right out of the gate, for example, Windows 10 wanted to collect more information about how people were using the operating system—ostensibly in the name of either helping Microsoft improve the OS or helping “personalize” its ads and recommendations. And the transition to the “software-as-a-service” approach helped Windows move faster but also broke things, over and over again—these kinds of bugs have persisted on and off into the Windows 11 era despite Microsoft’s public beta programs.

Windows 10 could also get pushy about other Microsoft products. Multiple technologies, like the original Edge and Cortana, were introduced, pushed on users, and failed. The annoying news and weather widget on the taskbar was a late addition to Windows 10; advertisements and news articles could clutter up its lock screen. Icons for third-party apps from the Microsoft Store, many of them low-rent, ad-supported time-waster games, were added to the Start menu without user consent. Some users of older Windows versions even objected to the way that the free Windows 10 upgrade was offered—the install files would download themselves automatically, and it could be difficult to make the notifications go away.

Even the mandatory Microsoft Account sign-in, one of the most frequently complained-about aspects of Windows 11, was a Windows 10 innovation—it was easier to circumvent than it is now, and it was just for the Home edition of the software, but in retrospect, it was clearly a step down the road that Windows 11 is currently traveling.

Windows 11 did make things worse, though

But many of Windows 11’s annoyances are new ones. And the big problem is that these annoyances have been stacked on top of the annoying things that Windows 10 was already doing, gradually accumulating to make the new PC setup process go from “lightly” to “supremely” irritating.

The Microsoft Account sign-in requirement is ground zero for a lot of this since signing in with an account unlocks a litany of extra ads for Microsoft 365, Game Pass, and other services you may or may not need or want. Connecting to the Internet and signing in became a requirement for new installations of both the Home and the Pro versions of Windows 11 starting with version 22H2, and while workarounds existed then and continue to exist now, you have to know about them beforehand or look them up yourself—the OS doesn’t offer you an option to skip. Microsoft will also apparently be closing some of these loopholes in future updates, making circumvention even more difficult.

And if getting through those screens when setting up a new PC wasn’t annoying enough, Windows 11 will regularly remind you about other Microsoft services again through its Second Chance Out-Of-Box Experience screen, or SCOOBE. This on-by-default “feature” has offered to help me “finish setting up” Windows 11 installations that are years old and quite thoroughly set up. It can be turned off via a buried checkbox in the Notifications settings, but removing it or making it simpler to permanently dismiss from the SCOOBE screen itself would be the more user-friendly change, especially since Microsoft already bombards users with “helpful reminders” about many of these same services via system notifications.

Microsoft’s all-consuming pivot to generative AI also deserves blame. Microsoft’s Copilot push hasn’t stopped with the built-in app that gets a position of honor on the default taskbar—an app whose appearance and functionality have completely changed multiple times in the last couple of years as Microsoft has updated it. Microsoft changed the default Windows PC keyboard layout for the first time in 30 years to accommodate Copilot, and Copilot-branded features have landed in every Windows app from Word to Paint to Edge to Notepad. Sometimes these features can be uninstalled or turned off; sometimes they can’t.

It’s not just that Microsoft is squeezing generative AI into every possible nook and cranny in Windows; it’s that there seems to be no feature too intrusive or risky to make the cutoff. Microsoft nearly rolled out a catastrophically insecure version of Recall, a feature for some newer PCs that takes screenshots of your activity and records it for later reference; Microsoft gave its security an overhaul after a massive outcry from users, media, and security researchers, but Recall still rolled out.

The so-called “agentic” AI features that Microsoft is currently testing in Windows come with their own documented security and privacy risks, but their inclusion in Windows is essentially a foregone conclusion because Microsoft executives are constantly talking about the need to develop an “agentic OS.” There’s a fine line between introducing new software features and forcing people to use them, and I find that Microsoft’s pushiness around Windows 11’s AI additions falls on the wrong side of that line for me pretty much every single time.

Finally, while Windows 10 ran on anything that could run Windows 7 or 8, Windows 11 came with new system requirements that excluded many existing, functional PCs. The operating system can be installed unofficially on PCs that are several years older than the official cutoff, but only if you’re comfortable with the risks and you know how to get around the system requirements check.

Using people’s PCs as billboards to sell them new PCs feels tacky at best. Credit: Kyle Orland

I find the heightened requirements—implemented to improve security, according to Microsoft—to be more or less defensible. TPM modules enable seamless disk encryption, Secure Boot protects from threats that are otherwise invisible and hard to detect, and CPU makers like Intel and AMD only commit to supporting older processors with firmware-level security patches for so long, which is important in the era of hardware-level security exploits.

But the requirements don’t feel like something Microsoft has imposed to protect users from threats; they feel like something Microsoft is doing in order to upsell you to a new PC. Microsoft creates that impression when it shows Windows 10 users full-screen ads for new Copilot+ PCs, even when their systems are capable of upgrading to the new operating system directly. People are already primed to believe in “planned obsolescence,” the idea that the things they buy are designed to slow down or fail just in time to force them to buy new things; pushing people to throw out functioning PCs with full-screen ads does nothing to dispel this notion.

Windows 11 could still be great

I still believe that Windows 11 has good bones. Install the Enterprise version of the operating system and you’ll get a version with much less extra cruft on top of it, a version made to avoid alienating the businesses that pay good money to install Windows across large fleets of PCs. Microsoft has made huge strides in getting its operating system to run on Arm-based PCs. The Windows Subsystem for Linux is better than it’s ever been. I’m intrigued by the company’s efforts to make Windows a better operating system for gaming handhelds, Microsoft’s belated answer to Valve’s Steam Deck and SteamOS.

But as someone with firsthand experience of every era of Windows from 3.1 onward, I can say I’ve never felt as frustrated with the operating system as I have during Windows 11’s Copilot era. The operating system can be tamed with effort. But the taming has become an integral part of the new PC setup process for me, just as essential as creating the USB installer and downloading drivers and third-party apps. It’s something my PC needs to have done to it before it feels ready to use.

Windows 10 was far from perfect. But as we mark the first stage of its multi-year passing, it’s worth remembering what it did well and why people were willing to install it in droves. I’d like to see Microsoft recommit to a quieter, cleaner version of Windows that is more willing to get out of the way and just let people use their computers the way they want, the same way the company has tried to recommit to security following a string of embarrassing breaches. I don’t have much hope that this will happen, but some genuine effort could go a long way toward convincing Windows 10-using holdouts that the new OS actually isn’t all that bad.

Photo of Andrew Cunningham

Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue.

Remembering what Windows 10 did right—and how it made modern Windows more annoying Read More »

lg-tvs’-unremovable-copilot-shortcut-is-the-least-of-smart-tvs’-ai-problems

LG TVs’ unremovable Copilot shortcut is the least of smart TVs’ AI problems

But Copilot will still be integrated into Tizen OS, and Samsung appears eager to push chatbots into TVs, including by launching Perplexity’s first TV app. Amazon, which released Fire TVs with Alexa+ this year, is also exploring putting chatbots into TVs.

After the backlash LG faced this week, companies may reconsider installing AI apps on people’s smart TVs. A better use of large language models in TVs may be as behind-the-scenes tools to improve TV watching. People generally don’t buy smart TVs to make it easier to access chatbots.

But this development is still troubling for anyone who doesn’t want an AI chatbot in their TV at all.

Some people don’t want chatbots in their TVs

Subtle integrations of generative AI that make it easier for people to do things like figure out the name of “that movie” may have practical use, but there are reasons to be wary of chatbot-wielding TVs.

Chatbots add another layer of complexity to understanding how a TV tracks user activity. With a chatbot involved, smart TV owners will be subject to complicated smart TV privacy policies and terms of service, as well as the similarly verbose rules of third-party AI companies. This will make it harder for people to understand what data they’re sharing with companies, and there’s already serious concern about the boundaries smart TVs are pushing to track users, including without consent.

Chatbots can also contribute to smart TV bloatware. Unwanted fluff, like games, shopping shortcuts, and flashy ads, already disrupts people who just want to watch TV.

LG’s Copilot web app is worthy of some grousing, but not necessarily because of the icon that users will eventually be able to delete. The more pressing issue is the TV industry’s shift toward monetizing software with user tracking and ads.

If you haven’t already, now is a good time to check out our guide to breaking free from smart TV ads and tracking.

LG TVs’ unremovable Copilot shortcut is the least of smart TVs’ AI problems Read More »

senators-count-the-shady-ways-data-centers-pass-energy-costs-on-to-americans

Senators count the shady ways data centers pass energy costs on to Americans


Senators demand Big Tech pay upfront for data center spikes in electricity bills.

Senators launched a probe Tuesday demanding that tech companies explain exactly how they plan to prevent data center projects from increasing electricity bills in communities where prices are already skyrocketing.

In letters to seven AI firms, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) cited a study estimating that “electricity prices have increased by as much as 267 percent in the past five years” in “areas located near significant data center activity.”

Prices increase, senators noted, when utility companies build out extra infrastructure to meet data centers’ energy demands—which can amount to one customer suddenly consuming as much power as an entire city. They also increase when demand for local power outweighs supply. In some cases, residents are blindsided by higher bills, not even realizing a data center project was approved, because tech companies seem intent on dodging backlash and frequently do not allow terms of deals to be publicly disclosed.

AI firms “ask public officials to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) preventing them from sharing information with their constituents, operate through what appear to be shell companies to mask the real owner of the data center, and require that landowners sign NDAs as part of the land sale while telling them only that a ‘Fortune 100 company’ is planning an ‘industrial development’ seemingly in an attempt to hide the very existence of the data center,” senators wrote.

States like Virginia with the highest concentration of data centers could see average electricity prices increase by another 25 percent by 2030, senators noted. But price increases aren’t limited to the states allegedly striking shady deals with tech companies and greenlighting data center projects, they said. “Interconnected and interstate power grids can lead to a data center built in one state raising costs for residents of a neighboring state,” senators reported.

Under fire for supposedly only pretending to care about keeping neighbors’ costs low were Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Equinix, Digital Realty, and CoreWeave. Senators accused firms of paying “lip service,” claiming that they would do everything in their power to avoid increasing residential electricity costs, while actively lobbying to pass billions in costs on to their neighbors.

For example, Amazon publicly claimed it would “make sure” it would cover costs so they wouldn’t be passed on. But it’s also a member of an industry lobbying group, the Data Center Coalition, that “has opposed state regulatory decisions requiring data center companies to pay a higher percentage of costs upfront,” senators wrote. And Google made similar statements, despite having an executive who opposed a regulatory solution that would set data centers into their own “rate class”—and therefore responsible for grid improvement costs that could not be passed on to other customers—on the grounds that it was supposedly “discriminatory.”

“The current, socialized model of electricity ratepaying,” senators explained—where costs are shared across all users—”was not designed for an era where just one customer requires the same amount of electricity as some of the largest cities in America.”

Particularly problematic, senators emphasized, were reports that tech firms were getting discounts on energy costs as utility companies competed for their business, while prices went up for their neighbors.

Ars contacted all firms targeted by lawmakers. Four did not respond. Microsoft and Meta declined to comment. Digital Realty told Ars that it “looks forward to working with all elected officials to continue to invest in the digital infrastructure required to support America’s leadership in technology, which underpins modern life and creates high-paying jobs.”

Regulatory pressure likely to increase as bills go up

Senators are likely exploring whether to pass legislation that would help combat price increases that they say cause average Americans to struggle to keep the lights on. They’ve asked tech companies to respond to their biggest questions about data center projects by January 12, 2026.

Among their top questions, senators wanted to know about firms’ internal projections looking forward with data center projects. That includes sharing their projected energy use through 2030, as well as the “impact of your AI data centers on regional utility costs.” Companies are also expected to explain how “internal projections of data center energy consumption” justify any “opposition to the creation of a distinct data center rate class.”

Additionally, senators asked firms to outline steps they’ve taken to prevent passing on costs to neighbors and details of any impact studies companies have conducted.

Likely to raise the most eyebrows, however, would be answers to questions about “tax deductions or other financial incentives” tech firms have received from city and state governments. Those numbers would be interesting to compare with other information senators demanded that companies share, detailing how much they’ve spent on lobbying and advocacy for data centers. Senators appear keen to know how much tech companies are paying to avoid covering a proportionate amount of infrastructure costs.

“To protect consumers, data centers must pay a greater share of the costs upfront for future energy usage and updates to the electrical grid provided specifically to accommodate data centers’ energy needs,” senators wrote.

Requiring upfront payment is especially critical, senators noted, since some tech firms have abandoned data center projects, leaving local customers to bear the costs of infrastructure changes without utility companies ever generating any revenue. Communities must also consider that AI firms’ projected energy demand could severely dip if enterprise demand for AI falls short of expectations, AI capabilities “plateau” and trigger widespread indifference, AI companies shift strategies “away from scaling computer power,” or chip companies “find innovative ways to make AI more energy-efficient.”

“If data centers end up providing less business to the utility companies than anticipated, consumers could be left with massive electricity bills as utility companies recoup billions in new infrastructure costs, with nothing to show for it,” senators wrote.

Already, Utah, Oregon, and Ohio have passed laws “creating a separate class of utility customer for data centers which includes basic financial safeguards such as upfront payments and longer contract length,” senators noted, and Virginia is notably weighing a similar law.

At least one study, The New York Times noted, suggested that data centers may have recently helped reduce electricity costs by spreading the costs of upgrades over more customers, but those outcomes varied by state and could not account for future AI demand.

“It remains unclear whether broader, sustained load growth will increase long-run average costs and prices,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers concluded. “In some cases, spikes in load growth can result in significant, near-term retail price increase.”

Until companies prove they’re paying their fair share, senators expect electricity bills to keep climbing, particularly in vulnerable areas. That will likely only increase pressure for regulators to intervene, the director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program, Ari Peskoe, suggested in September.

“The utility business model is all about spreading costs of system expansion to everyone, because we all benefit from a reliable, robust electricity system,” Peskoe said. “But when it’s a single consumer that is using so much energy—basically that of an entire city—and when that new city happens to be owned by the wealthiest corporations in the world, I think it’s time to look at the fundamental assumptions of utility regulation and make sure that these facilities are really paying for all of the infrastructure costs to connect them to the system and to power them.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Senators count the shady ways data centers pass energy costs on to Americans Read More »

microsoft-takes-down-mod-that-re-created-halo-3-in-counter-strike-2

Microsoft takes down mod that re-created Halo 3 in Counter-Strike 2

Last month saw the release of Project Misriah, an ambitious modding project that tried to re-create the feel of Halo 3 inside Valve’s Counter-Strike 2. That project has now been taken down from the Steam Workshop, though, after drawing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint from Microsoft.

Modder Froddoyo introduced Project Misriah on November 16 as “a workshop collection of Halo ported maps and assets that aims to bring a Halo 3 multiplayer-like experience to Counter-Strike 2.” Far from just being inspired by Halo 3, the mod directly copied multiple sound effects, character models, maps, and even movement mechanics from Bungie and Microsoft’s popular series.

In the weeks since, Project Misriah has drawn a lot of praise from both Halo fans and those impressed by what modders could pull off with the Source 2 engine. But last Wednesday, modder Froddoyo shared a DMCA request from Microsoft citing the “unauthorized use of Halo game content in a [Steam] workshop not associated with Halo games.”

A trailer announcing Project Misriah, posted last month.

In a social media post sharing that DMCA text, Froddoyo ruefully said that players should “make sure to give your thanks to Microsoft” for the project’s fate. But in a comment on Project Misriah’s YouTube trailer, Froddoyo noted that, following the takedown, the project “will not be worked on or uploaded in the future. But hey, it was fun while it lasted. Thank you to all of the players and supporters of [the] project. We will use the knowledge and skills obtained from this to cook up something else!”

Microsoft takes down mod that re-created Halo 3 in Counter-Strike 2 Read More »

microsoft-drops-ai-sales-targets-in-half-after-salespeople-miss-their-quotas

Microsoft drops AI sales targets in half after salespeople miss their quotas

Microsoft has lowered sales growth targets for its AI agent products after many salespeople missed their quotas in the fiscal year ending in June, according to a report Wednesday from The Information. The adjustment is reportedly unusual for Microsoft, and it comes after the company missed a number of ambitious sales goals for its AI offerings.

AI agents are specialized implementations of AI language models designed to perform multistep tasks autonomously rather than simply responding to single prompts. So-called “agentic” features have been central to Microsoft’s 2025 sales pitch: At its Build conference in May, the company declared that it has entered “the era of AI agents.”

The company has promised customers that agents could automate complex tasks, such as generating dashboards from sales data or writing customer reports. At its Ignite conference in November, Microsoft announced new features like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint agents in Microsoft 365 Copilot, along with tools for building and deploying agents through Azure AI Foundry and Copilot Studio. But as the year draws to a close, that promise has proven harder to deliver than the company expected.

According to The Information, one US Azure sales unit set quotas for salespeople to increase customer spending on a product called Foundry, which helps customers develop AI applications, by 50 percent. Less than a fifth of salespeople in that unit met their Foundry sales growth targets. In July, Microsoft lowered those targets to roughly 25 percent growth for the current fiscal year. In another US Azure unit, most salespeople failed to meet an earlier quota to double Foundry sales, and Microsoft cut their quotas to 50 percent for the current fiscal year.

Microsoft drops AI sales targets in half after salespeople miss their quotas Read More »

even-microsoft’s-retro-holiday-sweaters-are-having-copilot-forced-upon-them

Even Microsoft’s retro holiday sweaters are having Copilot forced upon them

I can take or leave some of the things that Microsoft is doing with Windows 11 these days, but I do usually enjoy the company’s yearly limited-time holiday sweater releases. Usually crafted around a specific image or product from the company’s ’90s-and-early-2000s heyday—2022’s sweater was Clippy themed, and 2023’s was just the Windows XP Bliss wallpaper in sweater form—the sweaters usually hit the exact combination of dorky/cute/recognizable that makes for a good holiday party conversation starter.

Microsoft is reviving the tradition for 2025 after taking a year off, and the design for this year’s flagship $80 sweater is mostly in line with what the company has done in past years. The 2025 “Artifact Holiday Sweater” revives multiple pixelated icons that Windows 3.1-to-XP users will recognize, including Notepad, Reversi, Paint, MS-DOS, Internet Explorer, and even the MSN butterfly logo. Clippy is, once again, front and center, looking happy to be included.

Not all of the icons are from Microsoft’s past; a sunglasses-wearing emoji, a “50” in the style of the old flying Windows icon (for Microsoft’s 50th anniversary), and a Minecraft Creeper face all nod to the company’s more modern products. But the only one I really take issue with is on the right sleeve, where Microsoft has stuck a pixelated monochrome icon for its Copilot AI assistant.

Even Microsoft’s retro holiday sweaters are having Copilot forced upon them Read More »