Perplexity just dropped a $34.5B bomb to buy Google Chrome.
-
Perplexity just dropped a $34.5B bomb to buy Google Chrome.
And with Google’s antitrust headaches piling up, I can’t see them saying no.
They’ve got a fiduciary duty to shareholders—and that means if the money’s good, Chrome’s gone.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/12/perplexity-google-chrome-ai.html -
Perplexity just dropped a $34.5B bomb to buy Google Chrome.
And with Google’s antitrust headaches piling up, I can’t see them saying no.
They’ve got a fiduciary duty to shareholders—and that means if the money’s good, Chrome’s gone.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/12/perplexity-google-chrome-ai.htmlKinda wish someone would come around and hard fork Chromium.
-
Kinda wish someone would come around and hard fork Chromium.
@CWSmith I’m using Vivaldi because it does everything that Chrome does but… not evil.
Someone is building a new browser engine from scratch called Ladybird (I think?). -
Perplexity just dropped a $34.5B bomb to buy Google Chrome.
And with Google’s antitrust headaches piling up, I can’t see them saying no.
They’ve got a fiduciary duty to shareholders—and that means if the money’s good, Chrome’s gone.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/12/perplexity-google-chrome-ai.html@atomicpoet "fiduciary duty to shareholders" is a nonsense. At least legally speaking. It's a myth.
-
@atomicpoet "fiduciary duty to shareholders" is a nonsense. At least legally speaking. It's a myth.
@nihongomaamaa @atomicpoet can you expand, or point me to some references? I'm using this a bunch in my (unrelated) research work, and would love to know if I'm doing something wrong.
-
@nihongomaamaa @atomicpoet can you expand, or point me to some references? I'm using this a bunch in my (unrelated) research work, and would love to know if I'm doing something wrong.
@naught101 @atomicpoet "fiduciary duty to shareholders" is usually used as shorthand for companies being legally obliged to maximise shareholder profit. There is no such obligation.
-
Perplexity just dropped a $34.5B bomb to buy Google Chrome.
And with Google’s antitrust headaches piling up, I can’t see them saying no.
They’ve got a fiduciary duty to shareholders—and that means if the money’s good, Chrome’s gone.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/12/perplexity-google-chrome-ai.html@atomicpoet
"fiduciary duty" my arse. Its a mirage. This is the same "duty" that worked out what Tesla should be paying Lone Skum. -
@atomicpoet
"fiduciary duty" my arse. Its a mirage. This is the same "duty" that worked out what Tesla should be paying Lone Skum.@NovaNaturalist From what I remember, Elon Musk didn’t want to by Twitter, but he was practically forced into it when he was sued. -
@naught101 @atomicpoet "fiduciary duty to shareholders" is usually used as shorthand for companies being legally obliged to maximise shareholder profit. There is no such obligation.
@nihongomaamaa @naught101 Except:
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. (1919) – Court told Henry Ford to cut the “cars for the people” act and pay the damn shareholders.
Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes (1986) – Delaware Supreme Court said if you’re selling the company, you’re basically an auctioneer, so get the top bid—no excuses.
Google just lost an antitrust suit. If they don’t cash out Chrome to keep investors happy, a judge might do it for them—without the courtesy of a gavel tap first.
