Update spe-da.md #10208
Update spe-da.md #10208
Conversation
Added details to Note section around PAYG feature and availability.
|
Learn Build status updates of commit 91e7ab8: ✅ Validation status: passed
For more details, please refer to the build report. For any questions, please:
|
|
just requested @tonchan-msft and myself for review. When its ready to go draft --> PR then you can request andrew |
| @@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ ms.localizationpriority: high | |||
| > | |||
| > SharePoint Embedded copilot is currently in private preview. Stay tuned for latest API and SDK changes on this page. | |||
| > | |||
| > Currently, to use SPE copilot, the consuming tenant user of the application is required to have a [Microsoft 365 Copilot license](/copilot/microsoft-365/microsoft-365-copilot-licensing). In the future, the license-based model will be replaced with a consumption-based model. Stay tuned for billing model announcements during the preview period. | |||
| > SPE copilot consumption-based model will soon be available this coming May! Starting May 1st, Standard billing model will be available to all private preview customers, and this roll out is expected to complete by May 15, 2025. This means that starting May 15th, to access SPE copilot within SPE applications, you will need to use standard container type and the copilot interactions, including those from Copilot license users, will be billed to the Azure subscription associated with your Container Type. Learn more about [SharePoint Embedded billing management](/sharepoint/dev/embedded/administration/billing/billingmanagement). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Considering we are still reviewing on 4/29, does the line "SPE copilot consumption-based model will soon be available this coming May! " make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Starting May 1st," "complete by May 15, 2025". Lets have a standard convention for dates.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"you will need to use standard container type" "billed to the Azure subscription associated with your Container Type". Lets standardize "container type" vs "Container Type"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"to access SPE copilot within SPE applications" - this potentially opens question on "how about accessing SPE copilot outside of SPE apps"? Do we need to frame this line this way?
Added details to Note section around PAYG feature and availability.
Category
Related issues
What's in this Pull Request?
Update to the note section to include PAYG feature availability.
Submission guidelines