Microsoft just pulled a Sony: The tech giant will get rid of your AI-created podcasts and won't let you save them 75%

By Sean Endicott44%

7/20/2026, 1:18:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Hasty Generalization, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.2% saturation with 188 hits. Analysis detected 941 faulty-reasoning hits from 480 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.6% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,463 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.20% of the article peer group.

Microsoft will soon take away your podcasts and offer no way to download them or export them . 
If you use the Copilot Podcasts feature, you have less than one month to listen to your created content. 
Copilot Podcasts can create an audio podcast about a suggested topic. 
You can then listen to the created podcast within Copilot on the web or the Copilot apps for iOS or Android, at least until August 18, 2026. 
On that date Microsoft will retire the Copilot Podcasts feature and cut off all access to any podcasts created with the tool. 
In a support document about the upcoming retirement, Microsoft specifies that all users who have podcasts in Copilot are affected and that none of the content will be accessible after the cutoff date . 
Strangely, Microsoft will not provide a way to export podcasts or save them in any way; the content will simply disappear . 
Losing access to digital content 
This is the latest example of a tech giant taking away digital content and not providing recourse to consumers. 
Of course, Sony taking away movies and TV shows people paid for is worse than getting rid of AI-created podcasts, but there's a clear trend emerging. 
Tech giants are increasingly stripping away the ability for people to control content . 
Microsoft never allowed you to download Copilot Podcasts, so it would have to create that feature just to offer it ahead of the tool's retirement. 
To share a created podcast, you have to share a link. 
But it's still strange to see podcasts disappear entirely. 
I doubt Copilot Podcasts was a popular feature. 
Honestly, it's a bit strange. 
I asked it to create a podcast about American football in the UK and two imaginary people went back and forth about the history of the sport. 
While podcasts can be valuable for the facts they include, personality is a major factor. 
Listening to the AI voices discuss American football feels like a couple bots reading a Wikipedia page. 
In the episode about American football, the cadence is off and feels unnatural. 
No one interjects or accidentally talks over the other hosts. 
It's an entirely sanitized synthetic podcast. 
There's also no way to confirm anything stated within created podcasts . 
That's fine for a humorous episode, but not if you use the feature to get context on a topic. 
As a small example, one of the digital hosts got the name of a football federation in Europe wrong. 
All that being said, if Microsoft was confident in Copilot Podcasts to ship the feature, it should be confident enough to let people keep podcasts that were created. 
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.9%Sean Endicott: 3.3%Windows Central: 4.2%Confirmation Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.4%Windows Central: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Sean Endicott: 2.9%Windows Central: 4.6%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Sean Endicott: 2.7%Windows Central: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias11.0%This article: 4.4%Sean Endicott: 5.5%Windows Central: 5.3%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 13.8%Sean Endicott: 1.5%Windows Central: 1.3%Loss Aversion13.8%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 1.1%Windows Central: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Sean Endicott: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 7.1%Windows Central: 8.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Sean Endicott: 1.3%Windows Central: 3.2%Pessimism Bias5.8%This article: 39.2%Sean Endicott: 7.2%Windows Central: 8.4%Negativity Bias39.2%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 1.7%Windows Central: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.9%Windows Central: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 3.0%Windows Central: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Sean Endicott: 1.3%Windows Central: 2.3%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Sean Endicott: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Sean Endicott: 2.4%Windows Central: 3.9%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 11.0%Sean Endicott: 2.7%Windows Central: 1.7%False Dilemma11.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 1.0%Windows Central: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.8%Sean Endicott: 6.5%Windows Central: 8.8%Hasty Generalization15.8%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.4%Sean Endicott: 0.5%Windows Central: 1.2%Bandwagon5.4%This article: 2.5%Sean Endicott: 1.8%Windows Central: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion2.5%This article: 5.8%Sean Endicott: 0.9%Windows Central: 1.0%Begging the Question5.8%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 1.7%Windows Central: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.0%Sean Endicott: 3.8%Windows Central: 3.8%Anecdotal20.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.6%Sean Endicott: 3.0%Windows Central: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.6%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.5%Windows Central: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.9%Sean Endicott: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.2%Personal Incredulity2.9%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 2.1%Windows Central: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.7%Windows Central: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.4%Sean Endicott: 14.0%Windows Central: 13.3%Biased Writer Voice15.4%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.8%Windows Central: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Endicott: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Sean Endicott: 7.6%Windows Central: 7.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.8%

480 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.1%attributed speech446writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMicrosoft • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Microsoft

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words100% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-16.6 ptsWriter: 16.6%Microsoft: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Microsoft: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.