The startup also offered to buy TikTok earlier this year. Google hasn’t indicated that it would sell Chrome at any price, and so far, the court hasn’t ordered a sale.
Perplexity spokesperson Jesse Dwyer confirmed to The Verge that the WSJ’s reporting is accurate. The startup’s bid for Chrome stands in stark contrast to the startup’s valuation of about $18 billion.
Dmitry Shevelenko, Perplexity’s chief business officer, told Bloomberg that “multiple large investment funds have agreed to finance the transaction in full.” A spokesperson for the startup also told Bloomberg that Perplexity would invest more than $3 billion in Chrome and Chromium over the next two years if Google accepts the deal.
Perplexity tells TechCrunch the terms of the offer include a commitment to keep Chrome’s underlying engine, Chromium, open source and to invest $3 billion into it.
Earlier this month, Microsoft’s Family Safety feature, primarily used by parents and schools as a set of parental controls and filters, started randomly blocking Google’s Chrome browser from opening on Windows. The first reports surfaced on June 3rd, with some Chrome users noticing the browser kept closing or wouldn’t open.
Microsoft has introduced a bug into Family Safety that specifically targets the Chrome browser and prevents it from functioning on Windows. “Our team has investigated these reports and determined the cause of this behavior,” says Chrome support manager Ellen T. “For some users, Chrome is unable to run when Microsoft Family Safety is enabled.”
Other browsers like Firefox or Opera appear to be unaffected, and some users have even found that renaming Chrome.exe to Chrome1.exe works around this issue. Schools or parents who have enabled Family Safety as part of a Microsoft 365 subscription can also disable the “filter inappropriate websites” setting in Family Safety to get Chrome up and running again, but this does leave children able to access any website.
It’s unclear when Microsoft will fix the issue, which has been ongoing for more than two weeks. We reached out to Microsoft to comment on this problem earlier this week, but at the time of publication, the company hasn’t responded.
“We’ve not heard anything from Microsoft about a fix being rolled out,” wrote a Chromium engineer in a bug tracking thread on June 10th. “They have provided guidance to users who contact them about how to get Chrome working again, but I wouldn’t think that would have a large effect.”
Thanks to Gemini, users can now ask questions about what's appearing on their phone's screen, and even check if they can score a discount on shopping sites.
Investors immediately acted as if Google's astonishing run at the top of the tech heap was over, and slashed the company's stock by more than 8%.
But a day later, Google's stock was climbing back up a bit, and there's a healthy debate about what Cue's statement means — as well as why he said it.
Spoiler: I'm not going to solve this one today. But let's at least look at the argument.
The most obvious way to view Cue's comments was the way Wall Street did: that Google search dominance was being eroded by AI competitors.
After all, fear of being usurped by AI is what pushed Google to fast-track its own AI efforts, even when some of those efforts created embarrassingresults.
But later on Wednesday, Google put out a statement that basically said Cue was wrong, without actually saying that out loud. Instead, the company said it was continuing to see increasing searches, and "that includes an increase in total queries coming from Apple's devices and platforms."
So that looks like two of the world's most powerful and valuable companies are disagreeing over basic, knowable facts.
But people who pay attention to this stuff are focusing on three key words in Google's statement: "total," "devices," and "platforms." And the absence of another word: "Safari."
And that's leading them to translate Google's statement this way: "Maybe Apple really is seeing fewer searches on Safari, the default web browser on iPhones. But you can use Google in other ways on iPhones — namely, via the Google app, but also via Google's own Chrome browser. And people are using those more — enough to counter any decline elsewhere."
Assuming that this translation is accurate, that should reassure Google and its boosters a bit, though not completely: Cue said the searches on Safari were down for the first time ever, and that's not the kind of signal you can just wave away.
And even if Safari Google searchers are really moving to things like the Google app instead, that also underlines the fact that people who used to just type something into their iPhone browser know now they can get results other ways. And there's no reason they couldn't also be searching on Google competitors like ChatGPT.
A Google rep declined to comment; Apple hasn't responded to my request for comment.
Google investors, by the way, don't seem 100% convinced by Google's statement: The stock is up 3% on Thursday, which means Google is still worth 5% less than it was Wednesday morning, when Cue started testifying in the US vs. Google antitrust trial.
Which brings us to the second question Google and Apple watchers are speculating about: Why did Cue say what he said in court, after all?
I'm an Occam's razor guy, so my first take was that Cue answered the questions he was asked in court.
But there's also a 4D chess argument, put forth by folks like MoffettNathanson's analyst Michael Nathanson. It goes like this: Cue has an incentive to portray Google as a wounded animal.
And one of the remedies the judge could push for would be to prevent Google from paying Apple for that valuable real estate — which would mean Apple could lose all of that high-margin revenue.
So, the theory goes, convincing the judge that Google no longer has a stranglehold on search, because of AI competition, might allow those payments to keep flowing after all.
That theory also helps explain Google's muted response on Wednesday night, where the company tried to walk the line between tooting its own horn (which bucks up investors but could damage its legal argument) and acknowledging that it has real competition (which could help Google in court but hurt it in the market).
Which brings us back to where we started: Is Google really starting to lose out to the ChatGPTs of the world, and entering a permanent decline, just like pay-TV networks a decade ago? Or is it holding its own despite the competition? Depending on where you're asking the question, Google might give you a different answer.
Correction: May 8, 2025 — An earlier version of this story misstated which company the Safari browser belongs to. It's Apple, not Google.
Google announced on Thursday that it’s rolling out new AI-powered defenses to help combat scams on Chrome. The tech giant will begin using Gemini Nano, its on-device large language model (LLM), on desktop to protect users against online scams. It’s also launching new AI-powered warnings for Chrome on Android to help users be aware of […]
The remedy phase of Google's antitrust trial is underway, with the government angling to realign Google's business after the company was ruled a search monopolist. The Department of Justice is seeking a plethora of penalties, but perhaps none as severe as forcing Google to sell Chrome. But who would buy it? An OpenAI executive says his employer would be interested.
Among the DOJ's witnesses on the second day of the trial was Nick Turley, head of product for ChatGPT at OpenAI. He wasn't there to talk about Chrome exclusively—the government's proposed remedies also include forcing Google to share its search index with competitors.
OpenAI is in bed with Microsoft, but Bing's search data wasn't cutting it, Turley suggested (without naming Microsoft). "We believe having multiple partners, and in particular Google's API, would enable us to provide a better product to users," OpenAI told Google in an email revealed at trial. However, Google turned OpenAI down because it believed the deal would harm its lead in search. The companies have no ongoing partnership today, but Turley noted that forcing Google to license its search data would restore competition.
Google has made an unusual announcement about browser cookies, but it may not come as much of a surprise given recent events. After years spent tinkering with the Privacy Sandbox, Google has essentially called it quits. According to Anthony Chavez, VP of the company's Privacy Sandbox initiative, Google won't be rolling out a planned feature to help users disable third-party cookies. Instead, cookie support will remain in place as is, possibly forever.
Beginning in 2019, Google embarked on an effort under the Privacy Sandbox banner aimed at developing a new way to target ads that could preserve a modicum of user privacy. This approach included doing away with third-party cookies, small snippets of code that advertisers use to follow users around the web.
Google struggled to find a solution that pleased everyone. Its initial proposal for FLoC (Federated Learning of Cohorts) was widely derided as hardly any better than cookies. Google then moved on to the Topics API, but the company's plans to kill cookies have been delayed repeatedly since 2022.
The Internet might look a bit different on Android soon. Last month, Google announced its intent to make Chrome for Android a more immersive experience by hiding the navigation bar background. The promised edge-to-edge update is now rolling out to devices on Chrome version 135, giving you a touch more screen real estate. However, some websites may also be a bit harder to use.
Moving from button to gesture navigation reduced the amount of screen real estate devoted to the system UI, which leaves more room for apps. Google's move to a "dynamic bottom bar" in Chrome creates even more space for web content. When this feature shows up, the pages you visit will be able to draw all the way to the bottom of the screen instead of stopping at the navigation area, which Google calls the "chin."
Google is hosting dozens of extensions in its Chrome Web Store that perform suspicious actions on the more than 4 million devices that have installed them and that their developers have taken pains to carefully conceal.
The extensions, which so far number at least 35, use the same code patterns, connect to some of the same servers, and require the same list of sensitive systems permissions, including the ability to interact with web traffic on all URLs visited, access cookies, manage browser tabs, and execute scripts. In more detail, the permissions are:
Tabs: manage and interact with browser windows
Cookies: set and access stored browser cookies based on cookie or domain names (ex., "Authorization" or "all cookies for GitHub.com")
WebRequest: intercept and modify web requests the browser makes
Storage: ability to store small amounts of information persistently in the browser (these extensions store their command & control configuration here)
Scripting: the ability to inject new JavaScript into webpages and manipulate the DOM
Alarms: an internal messaging service to trigger events. The extension uses this to trigger events like a cron job, as it can allow for scheduling the heartbeat callbacks by the extension
:: This works in tandem with other permissions like webRequest, but allows for the extension to functionally interact with all browsing activity (completely unnecessary for an extension that should just look at your installed extensions)
These sorts of permissions give extensions the ability to do all sorts of potentially abusive things and, as such, should be judiciously granted only to trusted extensions that can’t perform core functions without them.
Login
Credit:
Google
