As UX consultants, we're seeing a disturbing pattern: modern AI assistants are making the exact same mistakes that made Microsoft's Clippy the most hated feature in software history.
If you're over 30, you remember Clippy—the animated paperclip that would interrupt your work at the worst possible moments to ask "Would you like help with that?" Now, 25 years later, companies are rebuilding Clippy with better graphics and calling it innovation.
This isn't just nostalgia or criticism for its own sake. This is a critical lesson in what happens when companies build solutions looking for problems instead of solving actual user needs—and why strategic UX design agencies need to be involved from conception, not after users revolt.
Microsoft Office Assistant—affectionately (or not so affectionately) known as Clippy—launched in the late 1990s as an "intelligent" assistant for Office users.
The promise: An AI helper that would anticipate your needs, offer contextual suggestions, and make Office easier to use.
The reality: An intrusive animated character that interrupted your workflow constantly with unhelpful suggestions you never asked for.
The user experience:
Why it failed:
Microsoft eventually removed Clippy, and it became a punchline about bad UX design.
The lesson: Even well-intentioned AI assistance can become user-hostile when it prioritizes system capabilities over user needs.
Fast forward to 2025, and we're seeing Clippy's ghost everywhere.
Microsoft Copilot, GitHub Copilot, Google's AI assistants, Apple Intelligence—all promising to revolutionize how we work by anticipating our needs and offering "intelligent" assistance.
The problem: They're making the same fundamental mistakes Clippy made.
As UX design agencies working with companies implementing AI features, we're seeing:
Modern AI assistants pop up at inappropriate times, breaking user flow and concentration. They interrupt focused work to offer suggestions users didn't request and often don't want.
Example: You're deep in writing code or designing an interface, and suddenly an AI assistant appears suggesting you use a different approach—breaking your concentration and forcing you to evaluate whether the suggestion is valuable.
The UX failure: No consideration for user state, focus, or workflow.
Like Clippy thinking every document was a letter, modern AI assistants often misunderstand what users are trying to accomplish.
Example: AI coding assistants that suggest inefficient patterns because they don't understand the broader architecture. AI writing assistants that suggest tone changes that undermine the author's intent.
The UX failure: Surface-level analysis without deep understanding of user goals.
Despite being "AI," many of these systems don't actually learn from user behavior. You dismiss the same suggestion repeatedly, and it keeps appearing.
The UX failure: No personalization or adaptation to individual user preferences.
This is the core issue: companies are implementing AI because competitors are implementing AI, not because they've identified specific user problems that AI solves better than existing solutions.
Product design consultants call this "solution-first thinking"—and it's a recipe for failure.
Want a perfect modern example of Clippy thinking? Meet Rabbit AI and Humane AI Pin.
The pitch: Wearable AI assistants that would revolutionize how you interact with technology. Pin them to your chest like a Star Trek badge, and they'll handle everything through voice commands.
The reality: Expensive, impractical devices that solved problems nobody had, while also creating new ones.
What they promised:
What users got:
The UX disasters:
As UX consultants working across industries, we see this pattern: technology chasing spectacle rather than solving actual problems.
Any UX design agency worth hiring would have conducted basic research before building these products:
Questions we'd ask:
The answers would have revealed: This product solves no real user problems and creates significant new friction.
But they didn't ask. They built the solution and hoped problems would emerge.
This is the fundamental issue plaguing modern product development, and it's not unique to AI.
The wrong process:
The right process (that UX design agencies advocate):
The difference: Starting with problems versus starting with solutions.
Fast forward to 2025, and we're seeing Clippy's ghost everywhere.
Microsoft Copilot, GitHub Copilot, Google's AI assistants, Apple Intelligence—all promising to revolutionize how we work by anticipating our needs and offering "intelligent" assistance.
The problem: They're making the same fundamental mistakes Clippy made.
As UX design agencies working with companies implementing AI features, we're seeing:
Modern AI assistants pop up at inappropriate times, breaking user flow and concentration. They interrupt focused work to offer suggestions users didn't request and often don't want.
Example: You're deep in writing code or designing an interface, and suddenly an AI assistant appears suggesting you use a different approach—breaking your concentration and forcing you to evaluate whether the suggestion is valuable.
The UX failure: No consideration for user state, focus, or workflow.
Like Clippy thinking every document was a letter, modern AI assistants often misunderstand what users are trying to accomplish.
Example: AI coding assistants that suggest inefficient patterns because they don't understand the broader architecture. AI writing assistants that suggest tone changes that undermine the author's intent.
The UX failure: Surface-level analysis without deep understanding of user goals.
Despite being "AI," many of these systems don't actually learn from user behavior. You dismiss the same suggestion repeatedly, and it keeps appearing.
The UX failure: No personalization or adaptation to individual user preferences.
This is the core issue: companies are implementing AI because competitors are implementing AI, not because they've identified specific user problems that AI solves better than existing solutions.
Product design consultants call this "solution-first thinking"—and it's a recipe for failure.
Want a perfect modern example of Clippy thinking? Meet Rabbit AI and Humane AI Pin.
The pitch: Wearable AI assistants that would revolutionize how you interact with technology. Pin them to your chest like a Star Trek badge, and they'll handle everything through voice commands.
The reality: Expensive, impractical devices that solved problems nobody had, while also creating new ones.
What they promised:
What users got:
The UX disasters:
As UX consultants working across industries, we see this pattern: technology chasing spectacle rather than solving actual problems.
Any UX design agency worth hiring would have conducted basic research before building these products:
Questions we'd ask:
The answers would have revealed: This product solves no real user problems and creates significant new friction.
But they didn't ask. They built the solution and hoped problems would emerge.
This is the fundamental issue plaguing modern product development, and it's not unique to AI.
The wrong process:
The right process (that UX design agencies advocate):
The difference: Starting with problems versus starting with solutions.
One reason products like Clippy happen: companies acquire technologies and bolt them onto existing products without strategic integration.
Microsoft has a long history of buying products and awkwardly integrating them:
Why Word is terrible: Decades of acquisitions and feature additions without strategic UX oversight.
Adobe built its empire through acquisitions:
The result: Tools that work but feel disconnected. Features overlap. UX patterns conflict. Learning curves multiply.
As fractional design officers working with companies across industries, we see this constantly: acquisition without integration strategy leads to frankenproducts.
Here's an uncomfortable truth: products like Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite survive despite poor UX because of institutional inertia.
They live on through:
This creates perverse incentives:
UX consulting firms help break this cycle by showing companies the hidden costs of poor user experience:
For decades, designers were trapped in Adobe's ecosystem. Photoshop was the only viable tool for creating web designs. Then innovation happened:
Sketch arrived and changed everything:
Designers fled Adobe en masse. We didn't use Photoshop for 10 years because Sketch solved our actual problems better.
Then Figma arrived and changed everything again:
Now even Sketch users are switching. Because Figma solves real problems better than alternatives.
The lesson: When you actually solve user problems better than incumbents, users switch—regardless of institutional inertia.
Balsamiq: Simple, fast wireframing that feels like sketching. Perfect for low-fidelity exploration.
POP (Prototyping on Paper): Revolutionary tool that let you photograph paper sketches and turn them into clickable prototypes with hotspots. Brilliant for rapid validation.
InVision: Enabled prototyping and collaboration before Figma existed.
These tools succeeded because they solved specific user problems exceptionally well.
One reason products like Clippy happen: companies acquire technologies and bolt them onto existing products without strategic integration.
Microsoft has a long history of buying products and awkwardly integrating them:
Why Word is terrible: Decades of acquisitions and feature additions without strategic UX oversight.
Adobe built its empire through acquisitions:
The result: Tools that work but feel disconnected. Features overlap. UX patterns conflict. Learning curves multiply.
As fractional design officers working with companies across industries, we see this constantly: acquisition without integration strategy leads to frankenproducts.
Here's an uncomfortable truth: products like Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite survive despite poor UX because of institutional inertia.
They live on through:
This creates perverse incentives:
UX consulting firms help break this cycle by showing companies the hidden costs of poor user experience:
For decades, designers were trapped in Adobe's ecosystem. Photoshop was the only viable tool for creating web designs. Then innovation happened:
Sketch arrived and changed everything:
Designers fled Adobe en masse. We didn't use Photoshop for 10 years because Sketch solved our actual problems better.
Then Figma arrived and changed everything again:
Now even Sketch users are switching. Because Figma solves real problems better than alternatives.
The lesson: When you actually solve user problems better than incumbents, users switch—regardless of institutional inertia.
Balsamiq: Simple, fast wireframing that feels like sketching. Perfect for low-fidelity exploration.
POP (Prototyping on Paper): Revolutionary tool that let you photograph paper sketches and turn them into clickable prototypes with hotspots. Brilliant for rapid validation.
InVision: Enabled prototyping and collaboration before Figma existed.
These tools succeeded because they solved specific user problems exceptionally well.
Since he personally has no time or social media experience to curate an online presence for it, EVE has helped to start the foundation for an online following onInstagram and Facebook to reach customers Faraj would previously have missed out on.
It is important to recognize that social media marketing is becoming the new norm. While the start up of a social media strategy can be overwhelming, it doesn’t have to be.
While you focus on your passion of running your business, EVE is here to focus on our passion of helping you navigate the social media world and digital business.
Since he personally has no time or social media experience to curate an online presence for it, EVE has helped to start the foundation for an online following onInstagram and Facebook to reach customers Faraj would previously have missed out on.
It is important to recognize that social media marketing is becoming the new norm. While the start up of a social media strategy can be overwhelming, it doesn’t have to be.
While you focus on your passion of running your business, EVE is here to focus on our passion of helping you navigate the social media world and digital business.
As product design consultants, we advocate for proper validation before building. Here are methods that would have prevented Clippy, Rabbit AI, and countless other failures:
The cheapest, fastest validation:
Why it works: You learn whether core concepts resonate before investing in development.
Test features before building them:
Example: Put an "auto-save" button in your app. Track clicks. If nobody uses it, don't build the actual auto-save infrastructure.
Why it works: You validate demand before technical investment.
Observe users in natural contexts:
Example: Observing office workers would have revealed nobody wants interruptions while focused. Clippy would have died in research.
Why it works: Users can't always articulate their needs, but observation reveals them.
Understand complete workflows:
Why it works: Solutions that optimize one step but break the workflow create more problems than they solve.
Test with real people doing real tasks:
Why it works: What seems intuitive to designers often confuses users.
UX consultants working with service-focused companies emphasize: You can't skip research and expect good outcomes.
Here's something exciting: in 2025, the market for UX talent is more accessible than ever.
The situation:
What you could do with $600K/year:Hire 5-6 senior UX professionals for a year to:
Compare that to:
$600K to de-risk millions in development investment is the bargain of the century.
If you have $10-15K instead:
You can still get quality UX:
What you get:
UX design agencies in Chicago and other markets offer flexible arrangements for startups with limited budgets. The key is getting strategic UX thinking involved early.
For pre-funding startups:
Many fractional UX leaders will consider equity arrangements:
What this creates:
One pattern we see constantly: companies hire developers first, then try to figure out what to build.
Why this happens:
Why this fails:
The alternative:
Historical pattern: Almost every successful tech company started with a different product than what made them successful:
The lesson: Initial ideas are almost always wrong. Validate and iterate before massive investment.
A recurring pattern in failed products: amazing demos that don't reflect actual product capability.
The demo video showed:
The actual product:
The gap between demo and reality destroyed credibility.
The demo showed:
Real-world testing revealed:
The Verge's review: Basically everything was worse than using a phone.
As UX design agencies working with startups and enterprises, we warn clients: Don't build demos that show aspirational futures unless you can deliver them.
Why:
Better approach:
We're now facing a crisis that makes Clippy look quaint: the internet is being overwhelmed with AI-generated garbage.
Content farms using AI to generate:
The Cracker Barrel incident: A logo redesign controversy consumed social media for a week. Fox News and CNN covered it. Design professionals debated it passionately.
Then we learned: It was mostly bots arguing with each other.
Dead Internet Theory: A significant percentage of internet activity now comes from bots, not humans. This isn't conspiracy theory—it's measurable reality.
For researchers:
For users:
For companies:
Where is the UX leadership calling for better moderation and verification? Mostly absent.
As UX consulting firms, we're implementing verification steps that add friction but are necessary to ensure we're designing for actual humans.
OpenAI's Sora (video generation AI) represents a new level of crisis: we can no longer reliably distinguish real from fake.
A video showed adorable bunnies bouncing on a trampoline. Cute, viral, shareable.
It was entirely AI-generated. And most viewers couldn't tell.
The problem: If you've never owned a bunny (we have), you don't know:
But most people can't detect these cues.
A video showed a politician wearing a shirt insulting another politician, dancing in a mall.
It was AI-generated. And many people believed it was real.
When there was an actual, real assassination attempt on a political figure (caught on real video), many people's first reaction was: "That must be AI-generated. It looks like a movie."
We've reached a crisis point: Real events are being dismissed as fake because they look too cinematic. Meanwhile, fake events are being believed because they look realistic enough.
The psychological impact:
The UX question: How do we design systems that help users distinguish real from fake when the technology makes it impossible?
Nobody is working on this. We're too busy building more sophisticated AI generation tools.
Remember Black Mirror episodes where technology erodes human connection and empathy?
We're living it:
When something dramatic happens, people pull out phones to record instead of helping the person in distress.
The assassination example: People immediately started recording and sharing rather than processing the reality of what happened.
The shift: From "help the person" to "document for content."
Social media has created a world where:
The exhaustion: Gen Z is checking out. They're deleting apps. They're choosing real connections over digital ones.
The rebellion: "I'm off social media" is becoming a badge of honor among young people.
If you're building products—AI-powered or otherwise—here's the process product design consultants advocate:
Before building anything:
Use paper prototypes:
Use Wizard of Oz testing:
Start with minimum viable product:
Iterate based on feedback:
Don't just hire visual designers:
Consider fractional arrangements:
Wrong metrics:
Right metrics:
The hardest part:
But necessary:
We're planning to use the UX Murder Mystery podcast to demonstrate actual UX methods:
Coming episodes will cover:
The murder mystery format:
Send us your ideas:
Email us: questions@uxmurdermystery.com. Anonymous tips welcome.
The lesson from Clippy—and Rabbit AI, Humane AI Pin, and countless other failures—is simple:
Don't build solutions looking for problems.
Instead:
This requires:
The companies succeeding:
The companies failing:
Which will you be?
Need help avoiding Clippy-style disasters? As a UX design agency, we help companies validate product concepts before expensive development.
Whether you're building AI features, launching new products, or trying to fix existing ones, we bring research-driven strategy and decades of experience to help you build things users actually want.
Looking for a UX design agency that will validate your ideas honestly—even when it means saying "don't build this"? Let's talk about how strategic UX can prevent you from building the next Clippy.
This article is based on content from the UX MURDER MYSTERY podcast.
HOSTED BY: Brian J. Crowley & Eve Eden
EDITED BY: Kelsey Smith
INTRO ANIMATION & LOGO DESIGN: Brian J. Crowley
MUSIC BY: Nicolas Lee
A JOINT PRODUCTION OF EVE | User Experience Design Agency and CrowleyUX | Where Systems Meet Stories ©2025 Brian J. Crowley and Eve Eden
Email us at: questions@UXmurdermystery.com
While it is easy for small businesses to get caught up in the running of the business offline and put off thinking about creating a website to establish an online presence, many are starting to realize how important it is to do so.
You’re serious about your business and desire to have a serious web presence. Now what?!
The future is in digital business.
As UX consultants, we analyze products to understand why they succeed or fail. Today, we're examining one of the most personal—and broken—digital experiences in modern life: dating apps.
A strong user experience (UX) is a fundamental part of modern product design. But what exactly goes into creating a UX that not only delights but also retains users?
