Microsoft launches new Copilot agent tools billed by usage; fewer than 7% of Office seats have the $30 add-on

On a 450 million base, a 7% attach rate is 31.5 million Copilot seats ^[1]. At the $30 monthly list price ^[3], or $360 per user a year ^[2], that many seats would bill about $11.3 billion annually ^[3]. Discounts would pull that figure down, since it is a list-price number. The rest of the base, about 418.5 million seats on the same count, has not bought the add-on at $360 a head ^[4].

GHD, a consulting firm, shows where demand for the heavier tools sits. It has given Microsoft Copilot to 12,000 employees, and around 200 of them are experimenting with Copilot Cowork, the tier built for more complex tasks ^[8]. That is about 1.7% of its licensed staff ^[5]. A seat price asks the buyer to pay for everyone to reach that group. A meter charges the 200. David McLaren, GHD's enterprise data and AI leader, told CNBC he was excited for the new app "because it makes GitHub-like capability simpler for more people to use" ^[13].

Usage billing applies to the Cowork, Code and Autopilot portions of the new app, CNBC reported, priced the way clients already buy other AI products ^[4]. The report does not say the $30 seat is being withdrawn. As described, the meter sits on the agent tools.

The meter has a cost side. Microsoft is still leaning on the leading OpenAI and Anthropic models even as it invests in its own ^[10]. In the Code tab, users can choose a model, including a cost-efficient one from Microsoft. In the Home tab, where users generate reports and make scheduling changes, no Microsoft model is available ^[11]. So the productivity half of the app depends on outside models, and the outside suppliers Microsoft names are the two companies whose bundled products the market has been consolidating around ^[5][10]. Jacob Andreou, Microsoft's executive vice president for Copilot, put quality first. "We're holding a very high bar," he told CNBC. "This product is at its best when it's just optimizing for user value and for the quality of the output and what it's able to deliver." Cost efficiency is less important, he said ^[6].

Andreou pitched the app on getting agents into large companies. "The problem is that these agents have been almost impossible to bring into the enterprise," he said at a customer preview in Seattle on Wednesday, and he acknowledged to CNBC that adding coding is Microsoft playing catch-up ^[9]. Microsoft shares were up 3% this year as of Thursday's close, behind the Nasdaq and most of the company's megacap peers ^[7].

One outcome is that the meter adds revenue on top of seats, charging the GHD-style 200 without touching the $30 line. Another is that it replaces seat purchases, if buyers meter a few heavy users where they would otherwise have licensed whole departments. A third is that revenue grows while model costs grow alongside it, so gross profit trails the top line. I'd expect the first outcome in Code, where Microsoft offers its own cheaper model, and the third in Home, where it offers none ^[11]. The counter-case is that Microsoft's supply terms with its model partners make Home cheaper to run than it looks from outside. My view is wrong if a Microsoft model appears in the Home tab, because Microsoft would then keep the model cost as well as the usage fee.