Readit News logoReadit News
jrecursive · 13 days ago
NAL, but IMO it's legal & political maneuvering. DOJ asked Judge Mehta to consider forcing divestiture of Chrome after Google was found to illegally maintained a search monopoly. If it's determined the divestiture is feasible, especially with an existing more-or-less "credible buyer" at the ready, it looks executable. The offer is basically crafted to fit the DOJ/regulator concerns, ie everything is build around "least disruptive": keeping Google the default search engine, etc. Furthermore, just by doing this, they are putting ideas out there about what an "acceptable buyer" is and puts a number to the discussion about "what Chrome is worth". Purely remedies chess and an attempt to own the narrative. Google's going to say no, at least as-is, but this certainly throws a wrench in the works. Lots more moves to be made.
onlyrealcuzzo · 13 days ago
Unless Google is banned from providing a browser entirely, they'll just re-fork Webkit and release another browser, and it will very quickly replace Chrome usage.

Especially on Android - which is the most used OS in the world.

It seems strange to ban Google from offering a Search Engine, when all the other big tech companies can get into any field just fine, but the legal system is primarily a weapon for corruption these days, so who knows.

I mean, sure, if you want to start limiting what big companies do, and there's some fairness in how it's applied, fine.

But that's not what will happen.

wand3r · 13 days ago
Presumably they would include a clause they can't do that? If not, why wouldn't they simply fork Chromium if they haven't already. They must be bargaining that there will be some lockout period and regulatory scrutiny that would prevent them from immeadiately rebranding chrome and repointing all the download links to a new repo.
twelvedogs · 13 days ago
It's not about stopping people from making a browser and a search engine and tying them together, it's about abusing your web browser monopoly to promote your search monopoly (and vice versa) to keep competition out

The rules apply to everyone it's just that no one else has a search or browser monopoly

Microsoft had a browser monopoly at one point and it should have happened to them but they generously pissed it away

bigmadshoe · 13 days ago
Google pretty clearly has a monopoly on search though, and their ownership of Android + the #1 web browser in the world maintains this. I don't think a new fork of Webkit would change this argument.
johnnyanmac · 13 days ago
They lose the brand so that's the most important part. And chrome has far divestd from chromium in all the important ways Google makes money. It'd take years for chrome to to lose its marketshare even if Google had a chrome clone made tomorrow.

If anything, they may try to start from scratch, like with Fuschia. In which case the anti-trust was a success in making companies compete again.

sofixa · 13 days ago
> Especially on Android - which is the most used OS in the world.

In the EU, they're forced to ask you which browser and which search engine you want.

> It seems strange to ban Google from offering a Search Engine, when all the other big tech companies can get into any field just fine, but the legal system is primarily a weapon for corruption these days, so who knows.

Letting one instance of blatant anti competitive and anti consumer behaviour fly because others are allowed isn't the way to go. Google are a bit monopolistic abuser, fix that. Apple are too? Good, that's the next job.

> I mean, sure, if you want to start limiting what big companies do, and there's some fairness in how it's applied, fine.

> But that's not what will happen.

That's how the EU is approaching with the DMA and DSA.

tuesdaynight · 13 days ago
These marketing stunts from Perplexity made me stop using their product. For me, it's an indicator that they don't believe in their product, so there's no reason for me to do it either.
Aurornis · 13 days ago
I've tried to use Perplexity after reading all of the hype, seeing it praised by so many VCs, and seeing it appear on so many different lists of essential AI tools.

Yet most of my Perplexity queries have produced poor results. It always feels like they optimized for minimizing latency and producing output that feels good instead of doing actual research. Most of the time it feels like the same quality of results I'd get from skimming the top of the Google search page summaries if I didn't filter out the spammy site.

The product could be more useful if it spent several minutes researching, but that would defeat the wow factor that I'm sure their product managers are prioritizing.

Analemma_ · 13 days ago
Perplexity had a business case for one hot minute there, before OAI, Anthropic and Google all added search to their models, but now that have it, Perplexity doesn’t have a reason to exist anymore. They’re kind of the poster child for “if you don’t have your own model, you’re basically VC-funded market fit research for the companies which do, who will go on to copy and crush you.”
__rito__ · 13 days ago
Hard disagree.

Even during ChatGPT peak, when HN was buzzing with every other post being how ChatGPT/other LLM product replaced Google for them, I could not honestly switch, or meaningfully reduce my Google usage.

Until Perplexity.

It was the AI product that actually reduced my Google usage. Even with AI mode directly built into Google homepage now, Perplexity is still better.

It has basically zero hallucination, each para/entry backed by a URL, and lower latentcy than any other LLM product.

I don't know why you find it bad. I use it daily, and for serious searches.

It has fundamentally changed the way I search the web/ask questions in the web.

Wheaties466 · 13 days ago
It sounds like you need to be using the research function, which takes ~3 minutes but does a much more in depth search to find more relevant data.
pmart123 · 13 days ago
I remember when the hype first started around it, it was unusably slow, and produced poor results. Granted, I haven't tried it lately to see if latency improved, but the hype versus product state at the time, really turned me off from the product.
XCSme · 11 days ago
Same experience. Maybe I was using it wrong, but it always returned some outdated results, not even completely related to my query.
jamil7 · 13 days ago
I think the UX is good and could imagine it being applied well to a much better research tool.
Esophagus4 · 13 days ago
Really? I’ve found it to be a fantastic product, and a part of my daily use.

It’s reduced my legacy search engine usage significantly.

Is there a better product? ChatGPT with web search enabled?

I guess Google’s AI is probably good, I just haven’t used Google in a while as I switched to DuckDuckGo.

AbstractH24 · 12 days ago
A year ago it was useful. Now you are reminding me to cancel my subscription because it rarely is better that ChatGPT or Claude

Ever since deep thinking came out

koakuma-chan · 13 days ago
Which web search do you prefer over perplexity?
ZeroCool2u · 13 days ago
Kagi is a nice alternative.

https://kagi.com/

lukaslevert · 13 days ago
https://search.brave.com

Both Kagi and Perplexity are customers of Brave, btw. See https://brave.com/api or just ask if you have questions. Will answer what I can for anyone curious.

hagbard_c · 13 days ago
self-hosted SearXNG [1] pointed at the lot of them. All the results, none of the tracking and some insight in which subjects are suppressed by which search engine.

[1] https://docs.searxng.org/

xnx · 13 days ago
Google
spandrew · 13 days ago
Not me — Perplexity is so much better than Google. This troll bid made me laugh
nickthegreek · 13 days ago
i really enjoy perplexity. i recommend taking advantage of one of the o2 resale deals out there so that its like $7/yr instead of $240 and let the VCs eat the rest. I don’t know of any better ai access deals out there. It’s absurd and unsustainable.
beepbopboopp · 13 days ago
These are consumer products that are basically commodities to all but the largest power users. If you loved their product than this approach should make you ecstatic as its the only way they'll be able to survive as an independent.

OpenAi literally retired all their models to the anger of the likes of people like you because they know this is all basically a race for the most familiar consumer assistant on a monthly subscription.

joshuat · 13 days ago
My reason is much more petty, but their refusal to allow me to sign-in with either a password+2fa or passkey and instead force me to open my email for a magic link has pushed me away.

Don't make using your product annoying.

nashadelic · 13 days ago
Magic links are an order of magnitude safer than passwords, and the majority of regular users will never set up 2FA, so this raises the base safety for all
giancarlostoro · 13 days ago
Are they truly marketing stunts? I mean I guess they could just fork Chromium instead.
minimaxir · 13 days ago
Perplexity made a similar longshot offer for TikTok at the peak of that controversy, so yes it's a stunt: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/18/perplexity-ai-makes-a-bid-to...
firloop · 13 days ago
They've already forked Chromium. https://www.perplexity.ai/comet
rvz · 13 days ago
Yes they are. They did it with their bid to buy TikTok which went no where.

Perplexity already has a browser. At this point, this is complete desperation from them for attention.

sudenmorsian · 13 days ago
If there was any company that I would trust less with a web browser (and related user data) than an ad-tech company, it would be an AI company.
spandrew · 13 days ago
A social media ad company would be the least favourable. At least Google's central ad business is based off of search queries the user gives to them willingly for value.
athenot · 13 days ago
I think google amasses far more information via website analytics, Gmail and SSO (Log in with Google) than "willingly"-input search queries.
rpgbr · 13 days ago
This was the case, like, 20 years ago. Google is effectively an ad company that makes tech — including a browser — to gather more data from users and sell ads.
marcosdumay · 13 days ago
They have no lack of attempts to change their central business into a social media ad company, tough. They just failed.
Zambyte · 13 days ago
Perplexity is also an ad-tech company.
lukaslevert · 13 days ago
That has yet to do any successful ads at scale**
trentnix · 13 days ago
Isn't Perplexity the AI company that has been accused of ignoring robots.txt and requests not to data harvest?
Hamuko · 13 days ago
It is. They do go further than just ignoring robots.txt too.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/perplexity-is-using-stealth-unde...

mrweasel · 13 days ago
Basically anyone who would want to make an offer for Chrome should be banned for purchasing it.

It's not a profitable business to be in, and Perplexity would just do the exact same thing that might force Google to sell Chrome.

The only companies that should be allowed to buy Chrome are non-profits and companies promising to sell it for a fee (preferably not a subscription).

nicce · 13 days ago
> The only companies that should be allowed to buy Chrome are non-profits and companies promising to sell it for a fee (preferably not a subscription).

I am not sure if a single fee works. Browsers are too important and hard to maintain. What if people had paid single fee for Chrome 15 years ago for non-profit?

chollida1 · 13 days ago
A $14B to $18B dollar company offering an all stock deal worth about 2x as much as its market cap.

This isn't a serious offer, its a publicity stunt. Google would effectively own the entire company short of some mind blowing multiple expansion here.

Watch for Perplexity to be raising money in the next 6 months. But given this stunt it looks like they think their growth is over and they've peaked as a company.

jeron · 13 days ago
My exact thoughts as well, this “offer” might as well be a cry for Google to take a controlling interest in Perplexity lol
pbiggar · 12 days ago
If it's worth $18B, and Chrome is worth $34B, then the new company is worth $52B. Google gets 34/52 = 65% of the merged company.
jarym · 13 days ago
"The AI says I should raise $34.5 billion from investors and make a bid for Google's browser."

I wonder if they've thought about what it'll cost to keep Chrome dominant as a platform including the effort that goes into securing it on an ongoing basis!

mrweasel · 13 days ago
I was thinking the same thing. If they have to raise money to buy Chrome, can they afford the development teams?
bko · 13 days ago
I have a sense this is one of those issues that people don't know how they should feel, but some narrative of how we as enlightened technologists should feel will form.

On one hand, people don't like Google owning chrome as they have a huge influence on open web and they're essentially an ad company

On the other hand, if in the hands of an AI company, this could mean using your data for models, VC incentives, less open in general. Perplexity doesn't have a money printing machine to forever subsidize a browser.

It'll be interesting which narrative wins out.

gausswho · 13 days ago
I still don't understand how forcing Google to sell Chrome achieves any of the regulator's goals. The only piece that matters is how Google controls both ends of the advertising market. I wouldn't be surprised if Google is ushering this penalty because its a public slap on the wrist that they can go home laughing about.

Why buy Chrome anyway? Put that $34.5 billion into a team that forks and develops Chromium. Ban Google from developing browsers as well as paying for search preference in other browsers.

tinyhouse · 13 days ago
Perplexity are trying to find their place so they try whatever they can. Web search, shopping search, finance search, browser, deep research, anything. They were first to do a good job on web search but ChatGPT and Claude caught up and now Perplexity, who doesn't have their own family of models like the other two, is shooting in the dark.