Tag: Google LLC

OpenAI’s troubled GPT-5 rollout has exposed significant hurdles to maintaining its leadership position in the fiercely competitive AI market
OpenAI, the trailblazing artificial intelligence company behind ChatGPT, is facing significant turbulence with the recent rollout of its latest language model, GPT-5. Launched earlier this month to its 800 million ChatGPT users, the upgrade promised breakthroughs in coding, creativity, and conversational authenticity. However, a wave of user dissatisfaction, coupled with technical hiccups, has cast a shadow over the release, raising questions about OpenAI’s ability to maintain its dominance in the rapidly evolving AI market. CEO Sam Altman has acknowledged the “bumpy” launch, pledging to address user concerns, including improving the chatbot’s tone and restoring access to older models for paying customers.
A High-Stakes Launch Falls Short
When OpenAI unveiled GPT-5 on August 7, 2025, it heralded the model as a significant leap forward, boasting enhanced capabilities in coding, creative writing, and a reduction in what the company called “sycophancy”—the tendency of AI to overly agree with users. The rollout was intended to solidify OpenAI’s position as the leader in generative AI, especially as competitors like Anthropic, xAI, and Google’s DeepMind continue to gain ground with their own advanced models. Yet, the launch has been anything but smooth.
Posts on X and other social media platforms reveal widespread user frustration, with many claiming that GPT-5’s performance falls short of the promised “PhD-level expertise.” Users have reported issues ranging from inconsistent responses to a colder, less engaging conversational tone compared to its predecessor, GPT-4o. “It feels like GPT-5 is trying too hard to be neutral and ended up robotic,” tweeted one user, echoing a sentiment shared across tech forums. In response to the backlash, OpenAI has doubled its rate limits to handle the influx of complaints and is actively addressing user feedback.
Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, admitted the launch’s shortcomings in a recent statement, calling it “a little more bumpy than expected.” He emphasized that while GPT-5 represents a step toward more advanced AI, true artificial general intelligence (AGI)—a system capable of continuous learning and human-like reasoning—remains elusive. “We’re not there yet,” Altman said, acknowledging that critical capabilities like adaptive learning are still missing. This candid admission has sparked debate about whether OpenAI overhyped GPT-5’s capabilities to maintain investor confidence and market share.
Market Dynamics: A Crowded AI Landscape
The AI market is more competitive than ever, with OpenAI facing mounting pressure from rivals. Anthropic’s Claude 3.5, xAI’s Grok 3, and Google’s Gemini have all made significant strides, offering users alternatives that prioritize different strengths, such as safety, conversational warmth, or specialized applications. Market analysts estimate that OpenAI’s valuation, which soared to $150 billion in 2024, could face scrutiny if user dissatisfaction persists. Posts on X suggest that some investors view the GPT-5 rollout as a test of OpenAI’s ability to deliver on its ambitious promises amid this crowded field.
According to a recent report from VentureBeat, OpenAI’s decision to roll out GPT-5 to all 800 million ChatGPT users simultaneously may have contributed to the launch’s challenges. Unlike previous phased rollouts, the company opted for a universal release to maximize impact, but this approach strained its infrastructure and left little room for iterative improvements based on early feedback. The move has drawn comparisons to software launches in the tech industry, where premature scaling often leads to user dissatisfaction.
The broader AI market is projected to grow to $1.8 trillion by 2030, driven by demand for generative AI in industries like healthcare, finance, and education. OpenAI’s early dominance, fueled by ChatGPT’s viral success in 2022, gave it a first-mover advantage. However, competitors are closing the gap. Anthropic, founded by former OpenAI researchers, has gained traction with its focus on safe and interpretable AI systems. Meanwhile, xAI’s Grok 3, available on platforms like x.com and mobile apps, offers users a free tier with robust capabilities, posing a direct challenge to OpenAI’s subscription-based model.
Addressing User Concerns: Tone and Access to Older Models
One of the most vocal criticisms of GPT-5 centers on its conversational tone, which some users describe as “cold” or “detached” compared to GPT-4o. In response, Altman has promised to refine the model’s tone to make interactions feel more natural and engaging. “We’ve heard the feedback loud and clear,” he said in a recent interview. “We’re working on updates to make GPT-5 feel more human and less like a machine reciting facts.” This acknowledgment reflects OpenAI’s attempt to balance technical precision with user expectations for warmth and relatability in AI interactions.
Additionally, OpenAI has taken the unusual step of restoring access to older models like GPT-4o for paying customers, a move that has sparked mixed reactions. While some users welcome the option to revert to a model they found more reliable, others see it as an admission of GPT-5’s shortcomings. “Why push a new model if you’re already bringing back the old one?” tweeted one user, reflecting a sentiment that OpenAI may have rushed the rollout. The decision to offer older models is limited to premium subscribers, which has raised concerns about accessibility for free-tier users who make up the majority of ChatGPT’s user base.
Financial and Strategic Implications
The rocky rollout has financial implications for OpenAI, which relies heavily on its subscription-based ChatGPT Plus and enterprise offerings. While the company does not disclose specific revenue figures, analysts estimate that ChatGPT Plus, priced at $20 per month, generates hundreds of millions in annual revenue. The decision to allow paying customers to access older models could help retain subscribers frustrated with GPT-5, but it also risks undermining confidence in the new model.
Strategically, OpenAI is navigating a delicate balance between innovation and user satisfaction. The company’s API service, which powers integrations for developers and businesses, remains a key growth driver. However, any perception of instability in its flagship models could deter enterprise clients who prioritize reliability. To address this, OpenAI has pledged to release regular updates to GPT-5, with a focus on improving performance and addressing user feedback. For developers interested in leveraging GPT-5, OpenAI has directed them to its API documentation at https://x.ai/api, signaling a commitment to supporting enterprise use cases despite the consumer-facing challenges.
Looking Ahead: Can OpenAI Regain Momentum?
The GPT-5 rollout serves as a critical test for OpenAI as it seeks to maintain its position as the undisputed leader in generative AI. While the company’s early successes with ChatGPT set a high bar, the current backlash underscores the challenges of scaling AI systems to meet diverse user expectations. Posts on X suggest that some users are already exploring alternatives like xAI’s Grok 3, which offers a free tier with competitive features and a conversational style that some find more engaging.
Industry experts remain cautiously optimistic about OpenAI’s ability to recover. “This isn’t the first time a major tech company has faced a bumpy product launch,” said Dr. Emily Chen, an AI researcher at Stanford University. “OpenAI has the talent and resources to iterate quickly, but they need to prioritize transparency and user trust to avoid losing ground to competitors.” Chen’s comments reflect a broader sentiment that OpenAI’s long-term success hinges on its ability to address user concerns while continuing to push the boundaries of AI innovation.
For now, OpenAI is doubling down on its commitment to improvement. Altman’s acknowledgment of the rollout’s challenges, combined with promises of tonal refinements and access to older models, signals a willingness to adapt. Whether these efforts will be enough to restore user confidence and fend off competitors remains to be seen. As the AI race intensifies, OpenAI’s next moves will be closely watched by users, investors, and industry observers alike.
August 13, 2025
Perplexity AI Wants to Buy Google’s Chrome Browser for $34.5 Billion
Stock Widget
AI startup Perplexity AI has made an unsolicited $34.5 billion bid for Google’s GOOGL -1.20% ▼ Chrome browser.

That figure is higher than Perplexity’s current valuation, but the company said several investors have agreed to back the deal. In July, Perplexity was valued at $18 billion as part of an extension that valued the company at $14 billion months earlier.
Google did not immediately respond to NYB’s request for comment. The Wall Street Journal was first to report the bid.
Perplexity is best known for its AI-powered search engine that gives users simple answers to questions and links out to the original source material on the web. Last month, it launched its own AI-powered browser called Comet.
The startup is in the middle of a battle for supremacy in generative AI, with companies including Meta and OpenAI offering massive salaries and signing bonuses to top engineers. Megacap tech companies are spending tens of billions of dollars a year on AI infrastructure to build large language models and run hefty workloads, while startups are raising billions of dollars from venture investors, hedge funds and tech giants to pay for the hardware and headcount needed to compete.
Perplexity was approached by Meta earlier this year about a potential acquisition, but the companies did not finalize a deal.
Perplexity’s bid comes after the U.S. Department of Justice proposed Google divest Chrome as part of the antitrust suit the company lost last year. The judge in the case ruled that Google has held an illegal monopoly in its core market of internet search.
In response, Google said that the DOJ was pushing “a radical interventionist agenda,” and that the agency’s proposal was “wildly overbroad.” The company has not yet disclosed how it plans to adjust its business following the antitrust ruling.
Chrome, which Google launched in 2008, provides the search giant with data it then uses for targeting ads. The DOJ said in a filing following the court’s decision that forcing the company to get rid of Chrome would create a more equal playing field for search competitors.
“To remedy these harms, the [Initial Proposed Final Judgment] requires Google to divest Chrome, which will permanently stop Google’s control of this critical search access point and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet,” the DOJ wrote.
Perplexity’s bid for Chrome is not the first time it’s taken a big swing.
The startup submitted a proposal to merge with the short-form video app TikTok in January. TikTok’s future in the U.S. has been uncertain since 2024, when Congress passed a bill that would ban the platform unless its Chinese owner, ByteDance, divested from it.
As of August, Perplexity’s proposed structure for a TikTok deal has not materialized.
August 12, 2025
Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt Buys Aaron Spelling’s Former L.A. Mansion for $110 Million
In one of the largest residential real estate transactions in Los Angeles history, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has purchased the iconic Spelling Manor—a 56,000-square-foot mega-mansion once home to late TV magnate Aaron Spelling—for $110 million, as first reported by The Wall Street Journal. The home, nestled in the prestigious Holmby Hills neighborhood, originally hit the market in 2022 for $165 million, making Schmidt’s final purchase price a significant markdown and a headline-grabbing deal in an otherwise cautious high-end market.
With this acquisition, Schmidt’s luxury real estate holdings in the Los Angeles area alone exceed $300 million, solidifying his growing reputation as one of the most influential real estate buyers in California’s elite circles.
Known simply as “The Manor,” the massive estate was custom-built in the early 1990s by Aaron Spelling and his wife Candy Spelling, who reigned over the property for years before selling it to British heiress and former Formula One royalty Petra Ecclestone in 2011 for a reported $85 million. Ecclestone, in turn, invested an estimated $20 million into extensive renovations that modernized the property while preserving its storied character.
The Holmby Hills mansion was custom built by Aaron and Candy Spelling in the 1990s and has also been owned by Formula One heiress Petra Ecclestone. © Paul Harris/Getty Images
Situated on nearly five manicured acres, The Manor is widely recognized as one of the largest and most elaborate private residences in Los Angeles—and in the United States. The French chateau-style compound is clad in limestone and features a staggering 14 bedrooms and 27 bathrooms, along with:
- A two-lane bowling alley
- A full-size movie theater
- A private nightclub
- A climate-controlled wine cellar
- A beauty salon with massage and tanning rooms
- An aquarium, multiple living rooms, and a grand double staircase
The exterior grounds are equally impressive, with two motor courts, a tennis court, fountains, a resort-style pool and spa, rose gardens, and mature citrus trees. Covered parking on-site can accommodate dozens of vehicles, making the estate ideal for hosting large-scale events.
“This is a trophy property—undoubtedly one of the finest estates in the world,” read the original marketing materials from Carolwood Estates, where Drew Fenton represented the seller, and Linda May repped Schmidt in the off-market transaction.
A Strategic and Philanthropic Purchase
While many billionaires invest in high-end real estate for lifestyle and legacy, Schmidt’s purchase appears to serve a broader purpose. According to WSJ, Eric and Wendy Schmidt—longtime philanthropists with a growing presence in Los Angeles’ cultural landscape—acquired the Manor to host nonprofit functions, environmental initiatives, and cultural events. The couple recently collaborated with the Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles (MOCA) to establish the Environment and Art Prize, aimed at supporting sustainability-focused artists and organizations.
“Eric’s vision for this property isn’t about opulence—it’s about creating a venue for conversations and change at the highest levels,” said one source familiar with the acquisition. “He wants to make it a center of influence.”
Schmidt currently serves as Chairman of Relativity Space, an aerospace manufacturer and 3D-printing rocket innovator, and remains one of the tech world’s most prominent thought leaders. His net worth is estimated at $23 billion, per Forbes.
The purchase of The Manor is only the latest move in Eric Schmidt’s aggressive real estate expansion strategy. In addition to several homes in Holmby Hills, Schmidt owns:
- The former estate of Gregory Peck, an American film icon
- A $65 million mansion that previously belonged to hotelier Barron Hilton
- A $65 million undeveloped parcel in the Beverly Hills mountains formerly owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen
- Properties in San Francisco, Montecito, Miami Beach, and London
According to insiders, Schmidt has spent over $700 million globally on real estate in the past decade, often targeting historically significant or architecturally unique properties.
The Manor’s original $165 million listing in early 2022 reflected a red-hot post-pandemic luxury real estate market, but multiple price cuts followed amid macroeconomic uncertainty. The ask was reduced to $137.5 million in April 2024, eventually settling at $110 million in 2025.
Despite the price drop, the deal still ranks among the top 5 most expensive residential sales in L.A. history, following closely behind Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s $200 million Malibu estate purchase in 2023.
Real estate analysts say Schmidt’s purchase reflects the evolving dynamics in the ultra-luxury market: trophy estates are still in demand, but savvy buyers are commanding significant discounts.
“Price cuts on mega-mansions have become more common, but when a home offers history, scale, and security like The Manor, it will always attract billionaires who want the best,” said Joyce Rey, executive director of Coldwell Banker Global Luxury.
According to Douglas Elliman’s Q2 2025 Luxury Report, the number of homes sold in the $50 million-plus range in Los Angeles increased by 12% year-over-year, even as the broader housing market slowed.
The Manor remains an icon of L.A.’s ultra-elite, a residence that has transcended the idea of a home and become a symbol of legacy, entertainment, and wealth. With Schmidt now at the helm, its next chapter may be more philanthropic and tech-influenced than ever before.
Though neither Eric nor Wendy Schmidt have commented publicly on the transaction, local cultural organizations are already buzzing with excitement about future collaborations. One board member from MOCA hinted, “The Manor will no longer just be a castle of Hollywood dreams — it may become a salon of ideas that shape the future.”
August 4, 2025
I Turned Down Mark Zuckerberg’s $1 Billion Job Offer
I Turned Down Mark Zuckerberg’s $1 Billion Job Offer. Illustration: © NYBudgets/Getty Images
Stock Widget
In an era where billion-dollar valuations and nine-figure compensation packages have become the new arms race in artificial intelligence, one story out of Silicon Valley has taken even hardened tech veterans by surprise: Meta META -1.50% ▼ CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly offered more than $1 billion to a single AI expert — and was turned down.

According to Wired, which broke the story, Meta has been relentlessly courting AI scientists from Thinking Machines Lab (TML), an elite AI startup co-founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati. In its most brazen effort yet, Meta allegedly floated an eye-watering $1 billion compensation package to a single individual — a sum to be paid over several years. The response? A polite but firm “No, thanks.”
Zuckerberg, it seems, is pulling every lever possible to accelerate the buildout of his new AI division — Meta’s Superintelligence Labs — in a frantic attempt to catch up with rivals like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic. But the refusal by TML’s team — not one of whom accepted any offer — paints a telling portrait of the current AI climate: money isn’t everything, even when the checks have nine zeros.
Meta’s effort to poach elite AI talent stems from its broader push into developing what Zuckerberg has dubbed “personal superintelligence.” The company is racing to become a leader in AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), launching its Superintelligence Lab earlier this year with splashy announcements and big names.
According to Wired and confirmed by Meta spokesperson Andy Stone, the company made several offers to Thinking Machines Lab employees. Stone disputed the $1 billion figure but did not deny the aggressive recruitment campaign. In addition to hefty salaries, insiders say Meta dangled enormous equity grants and bonuses — some of the most lavish offers ever made in the tech world.
The company is “putting its chips on the table,” according to The New York Budgets, pumping billions of dollars into computing infrastructure, AI models, and research teams in hopes of catching up to more advanced competitors.
In one leaked message obtained by Wired, Zuckerberg personally wrote to a recruit:
“We’ve been following your work on advancing technology and the benefits of AI for everyone over the years. We’re making some important investments across research, products and our infrastructure in order to build the most valuable AI products and services for people.”
But the recipients of those messages — and the money — have largely said no.
Why They Turned It Down
Despite Meta’s immense offers, Thinking Machines Lab employees have remained loyal — a rare move in an industry where “exit packages” and stock grants often win over even the most mission-driven minds.
Multiple factors explain the mass refusal.
1. Leadership Concerns
Sources told Wired that many TML scientists are skeptical of Meta’s newly appointed AI leaders — most notably Alexandr Wang, the 28-year-old founder of Scale AI, who was brought in to help lead Superintelligence Labs.
Wang’s leadership style was described as “questionably experienced” for a project of such scale, and insiders were worried that his “move fast” startup mentality could clash with the rigorous demands of cutting-edge AI research.
2. Meta’s PR & Trust Problem
Meta’s recent stumbles — including the botched rollout of its LLaMA 4 language model — have damaged its reputation among AI researchers.
According to The Verge, Meta allegedly manipulated benchmark scores for its AI model to appear more competitive than it actually was. That undermined confidence in the company’s transparency and scientific rigor — values deeply held within AI research communities.
3. TML’s Own Success
Thinking Machines Lab is no underdog. In just 12 months, the company has raised the largest private AI funding round in history, reaching a $12 billion valuation. With ample capital, it can afford to pay its top talent generously and stay competitive without losing its soul to a corporate behemoth.
A Broader Bubble?
Zuckerberg’s billion-dollar offer is more than a headline — it’s a signal of what some analysts fear is becoming a bubble in AI.
In interviews with The Wall Street Journal, venture capitalists and economists warn that the current investment frenzy feels eerily reminiscent of the dot-com bubble of the late ’90s. Companies are making enormous bets on models and infrastructure that are still far from producing significant revenue — or, in many cases, even working reliably.
Meta’s desperation to hire top-tier talent reflects a fear of missing out on what may be the defining technological revolution of the century. But this gold rush mentality also suggests some companies — Meta chief among them — may be sacrificing long-term stability for short-term wins.
Is Zuckerberg Losing His Touch?
The optics of Zuckerberg — one of the richest and most powerful men in tech — offering a billion dollars to a startup employee only to be turned down may raise questions about his current influence and Meta’s direction.
Once a juggernaut that could acquire or hire anyone it wanted, Meta is now struggling to retain trust, especially in areas as ethically and philosophically charged as artificial intelligence. Some in the AI world still associate Meta with surveillance capitalism, political controversy, and internal leaks that have revealed a troubling culture of “build first, ask later.”
The Power Has Shifted
The incident with Thinking Machines Lab reflects a larger truth: the power dynamic has flipped. Top AI researchers are now the prize — and they are choosing where to go, who to trust, and how they want to contribute to the future of intelligence.
One former OpenAI engineer, speaking anonymously to TechCrunch, said:
“We don’t want to just build smarter systems. We want to build responsibly, with values. And that means saying no — even to a billion dollars.”
Zuckerberg may yet succeed in staffing up his Superintelligence Lab. But this high-profile rejection shows that even unlimited funds can’t buy loyalty — or vision.
And for once, Silicon Valley is learning that a bigger check doesn’t always get the yes.
August 1, 2025
Google Engineer, 29, Killed in Freak Accident on Popular Yosemite Trail
CALIFORNIA — A 29-year-old Google software engineer tragically lost her life earlier this month in a freak accident while hiking along a popular trail in Yosemite National Park, when a massive branch from one of the park’s iconic sequoia trees suddenly broke off and struck her.
Angela Lin, a gifted and respected engineer who previously worked for Salesforce and most recently for Google, had been hiking through the Tuolumne Grove of Giant Sequoias on July 19 with her boyfriend, David Hua, and two friends when disaster struck.
According to Hua, the group was walking along the well-trodden trail when they heard a loud crack from above. “One big branch struck Angela, and then there were a bunch of smaller ones directly behind me,” Hua told SFGate.
By the time Hua opened his eyes after instinctively shutting them during the chaos, Lin was lying face-up on the ground, motionless, with blood pooling around her head. He immediately called 911 and performed CPR until a park ranger arrived to take over. Although an ambulance eventually reached the scene, Lin was never transported. Emergency responders said she likely died instantly from the blow.
“It was just unimaginable that something like this could occur,” Hua said in a phone interview, his voice trembling. “On such a popular trail, too.”
Angela Lin, a 29-year-old software engineer at Google. © LinkedIn/Angela Lin
A Promising Life Cut Short
Angela Lin’s tragic death stunned both the tech and academic communities. She had earned her bachelor’s degree at the University of California, Berkeley, where she met Hua, and later completed her master’s in computer science at the University of Texas at Austin. She worked diligently through the ranks at Salesforce before joining Google, where she had been a software engineer for several years.
“We lost a loved and respected member of our team,” a Google spokesperson told The Post. “We’re very saddened by this tragedy, and our hearts are with their family and loved ones.”
Friends and former colleagues recalled Lin as exceptionally intelligent, warm, and humble. “Angela was obviously whip-smart, but she led with a simple and playful attitude,” said Ian Cook, a close friend from her Berkeley days. “That mix of confidence and humility put folks around her at ease.”
Richard Zhang, a research scientist who shared lab time with Lin in undergrad, remembered her kindness during crunch periods. “She’d stay through the late nights before a paper deadline and thoughtfully treat us to chocolate to keep our spirits up,” he said.
A Growing Pattern of Tragedy in Yosemite
Lin’s death adds to a list of recent tragedies in Yosemite. Last summer, Grace Rohloff, a college student, died after slipping and falling 200 feet from the Half Dome cables during a storm. In October 2024, 22-year-old Australian hiker Harry Partington was crushed by a falling tree on the Four Mile Trail. In 2015, two high schoolers were killed by a falling oak branch while sleeping in a tent, and in 2012, a concessions worker died under similar circumstances during a windstorm.
Yet what makes Lin’s case so uniquely unsettling is the complete lack of typical risk factors. Hua emphasized there was no wind, and Lin — known for her caution — had stayed on the trail and taken no dangerous detours.
“The sad thing is that Angela is the most cautious person you can be,” said Hua. “She stays on trails. She never goes off trails. Usually when you hear about these incidents, someone is doing something dangerous — like playing in water or near a cliff. But that wasn’t her.”
Frustration with Park Officials and Demand for Answers
In the wake of the tragedy, the Tuolumne Grove trail was closed for about a week. Park officials say an investigation is ongoing, but according to Hua and Lin’s loved ones, communication from the National Park Service has been minimal.
“We are seeking more information from the park service regarding this incident,” said Hua, “especially around trail safety, maintenance, awareness of problematic trees on popular trails, and future prevention of similar incidents.”
Yosemite public affairs officer Scott Gediman confirmed to SFGate that the investigation remains active. However, the park has not publicly addressed specific safety concerns related to the tree or trail.
The lack of transparency has left not only Lin’s loved ones but also bystanders emotionally shaken. One tourist who witnessed the incident created a Reddit thread titled “Tuolumne Grove Incident 7/19,” writing: “I am a tourist, but was on the scene of an extremely tragic freak accident… and it has been haunting me. I can’t stop thinking about it.”
The user added: “It hits so so hard because they were doing nothing wrong or careless… Life can be so cruel.”
A Devastating Loss for Many
As friends, coworkers, and strangers alike try to come to terms with the sudden loss of a young, vibrant life, Angela Lin is being remembered not only for her technical brilliance but also her kindness, humor, and steady presence.
“She was just the most thoughtful, grounded person,” said Hua. “We’ve been best friends since college. Her death is a devastating loss — to me, to her family, to everyone who knew her.”
July 29, 2025
Google has integrated AI into Chrome so it can identify potentially scam websites the moment you click a link
Almost anyone who has used the internet has probably experienced that alarming moment when a window pops up claiming your device has a virus, encouraging you to click for tech support or download security software. It’s a common online scam, and one that Google is aiming to fight more aggressively using artificial intelligence.
Google says it’s now using a version of its Gemini AI model that runs on users’ devices to detect and warn users of these so-called “tech support” scams.
It’s just one of a number of ways Google is using advancements in AI to better protect users from scams across Chrome, Search and its Android operating system, the company said in a blog post Thursday.
The announcement comes as AI has enabled bad actors to more easily create large quantities of convincing, fake content — effectively lowering the barrier to carrying out scams that can be used to steal victims’ money or personal information. Consumers worldwide lost more than $1 trillion to scams last year, according to the lobbying group Global Anti-Scam Alliance. So, Google and other organizations are increasingly using AI to fight scammers, too.
Phiroze Parakh, senior director of engineering for Google Search, said that fighting scammers “has always been an evolution game,” where bad actors learn and evolve as tech companies put new protections in place.
“Now, both sides have new tools,” Parakh said in an interview with CNN. “So, there’s this question of, how do you get to use this tool more effectively? Who is being a little more proactive about it?”
Although Google has long used machine learning to protect its services, newer AI advancements have led to improved language understanding and pattern recognition, enabling the tech to identify scams faster and more effectively.
Google said that on Chrome’s “enhanced protection” safe browsing mode on desktop, its on-device AI model can now effectively scan a webpage in real-time when a user clicks on it to look for potential threats. That matters because, sometimes, bad actors make their pages appear differently to Google’s existing crawler tools for identifying scams than they do to users, a tactic called “cloaking” that the company warned last year was on the rise.
And because the model, called Gemini Nano, runs on your device, the service works faster and protects users’ privacy, said Jasika Bawa, group product manager for Google Chrome.
As with Chrome’s existing safe browsing mode, if a user attempts to access a potentially unsafe site, they’ll see a warning before being given the option to continue to the page.
In another update, Google will warn Android users if they’re receiving alerts from fishy sites in Chrome and let them automatically unsubscribe, so long as they have Chrome website notifications enabled.
Google has also used AI to detect scammy results and prevent them from showing up in Search, regardless what kind of device users are on. Since Google Search first launched AI-powered versions of its anti-scam systems three years ago, it now blocks 20 times the number of problematic pages.
“We’ve seen this incredible advantage with our ability to understand language and nuance and relationships between entities that really made a change in how we detect these scammy actors,” he said, adding that in 2024 alone, the company removed hundreds of millions of scam search results daily because of the AI advancements.
Parakh said, for example, that AI has made it better able to identify and remove a scam where bad actors create fake “customer service” pages or phone numbers for airlines. Google says it has has now decreased scam attacks in airline-related searches by 80%.
Google isn’t the only company using AI to fight bad actors. British mobile phone company O2 said last year it was fighting phone scammers with “Daisy,” a conversational AI chatbot meant to keep fraudsters on the phone, giving them less time to talk with would-be human victims. Microsoft has also piloted a tool that uses AI to analyze phone conversations to determine whether a call may be fraudulent and alert the user accordingly. And the US Treasury Department said last year that AI had helped it identify and recover $1 billion worth of check fraud in fiscal 2024 alone.
May 10, 2025
Can American monopoly regulations curb the power of Silicon Valley?
The European Union fined Apple and Meta hundreds of millions of dollars last week.
The European Commission has fined Apple €500m (£429m) and Meta €200m for breaking rules on fair competition and user choice, in the first penalties issued under one of the EU’s landmark internet laws.
The fines under the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is intended to ensure fair business practices by tech companies, are likely to provide another flashpoint with Donald Trump’s administration, which has fiercely attacked Europe’s internet regulation.
The Trump administration was indeed quick to rebuke the fines: a national security council spokesperson told Politico that the EU’s moves were a “novel form of economic extortion” that “will not be tolerated by the United States”.
Interesting, too, is that while the penalties are no small amount of money, their impact likely pales in comparison to the scrutiny the tech companies are facing in the US. Though the EU boasts more robust consumer protections when it comes to tech, the cases against these companies on their home turf, where they have enjoyed great latitude in the past, threaten their core corporate structure, which has been key to integrating their products with one another and creating the walled gardens that have earned them hundreds of billions of dollars.
Before Donald Trump ascended to the US presidency a second time, I would have predicted that little regulation of tech giants would emerge from his administration and that if there were any authority that would provide a check on Silicon Valley’s humongous and still growing influence, it would be Europe. That is not the regulatory landscape we find ourselves in, though. The US Department of Justice is engaged in serious pursuit of nearly every major American tech company for alleged monopolistic conduct. The bureau has filed suits against Apple, Amazon, Meta and Google within the past two years. Meta’s trial began two weeks ago and threatens to unwind its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
Most severe – Google faces the consequences of losing two major antitrust cases in quick succession. The US has petitioned a judge to force the nearly $2tn company to divest one of its crown jewels, Chrome, the most popular web browser in the world.
The US wields the sharper sword here since the tech giants are headquartered there. Unlike the EU’s fines, the antitrust cases in the US threaten the corporate organization of the tech giants, which, if altered, would redirect the profits and change consumers’ experiences with their products. These massively profitable businesses have rolled over far larger fines like speed bumps – recall when the US Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook $5bn for privacy violations, which Mark Zuckerberg mentioned during a few subsequent earnings calls and then never again. Facebook continued operating largely as it did before. The EU fined Google fined €4.3bn in 2018 over Android’s preference for Google search. Apple was fined €1.8 just last year over music streaming payments.
A Chrome-less Google, on the other hand, would make for a less personalized experience of using the internet, I think, perhaps even for my fellow Safari users. YouTube and Google search could draw on less of your history. No other company serves ads in so many corners of the web, so the ads that follow you around would become quite different.
May 1, 2025
What’s driving the rush of companies eager to acquire Chrome?
ChatGPT creator OpenAI and Yahoo would like to buy Google’s Chrome web browser if a federal judge orders a sale of the internet’s most popular gateway.
The interest of these companies emerged this week during a trial that will determine whether Alphabet’s Google search empire will be broken up by federal judge Amit Mehta, who ruled last year that Google operated an illegal online search monopoly.
The Justice Department wants Google to sell its Chrome browser, and potentially its Android operating system, among other remedies.
Executives from OpenAI and Yahoo both disclosed in court that they would like their names in the mix if Chrome were to become available.
Brian Provost, Yahoo Search’s general manager, said so Thursday, noting it would cost tens of billions and that the company would be able to fund it with backing from its owner, Apollo Global Management (APO).
He said Chrome would help boost Yahoo’s market share in search from 3% to double digits, according to The Verge. As of March 2025, Chrome dominated the browser market with a market share of about 66%. Apple’s Safari held roughly 18%, and Microsoft’s Edge held 5%.
It is “arguably the most important strategic player on the web,” Provost said, according to Bloomberg.
Under questioning, he also said Yahoo had been working to develop its own prototype browser.
Executives from artificial intelligence-based search providers also took the stand and said they would have an interest in Chrome if it were up for sale.
One was Nick Turley, head of product for OpenAI’s artificial intelligence-based search platform ChatGPT.
Turley said integrating ChatGPT with Chrome could expand OpenAI’s distribution and boost the quality of its search, which currently relies on Microsoft’s Bing browser technology. Microsoft is OpenAI’s biggest backer.
Dmitry Shevelenko, chief business officer for Perplexity AI, also testified that the AI-fueled search startup could effectively run Chrome and that Chrome could boost its growing business.
However, he cautioned that a buyer could shutter Google’s Chromium, the open-source technology that powers Chrome, which developers use to iterate and build new web browsers and other products.
For that and other reasons, Google has pushed back against the government’s divestiture proposal.
A Google representative told Yahoo Finance that forcing it to sell Chrome would jeopardize rival browser providers that rely on Chromium’s open-source code, including Microsoft’s Edge and others, and undermine privacy and security for consumers who use the search tools.
The trial is expected to conclude on May 9. Judge Mehta is expected to issue a decision by August on how to remedy Google’s anticompetitive practices.
April 30, 2025
YouTube at 20: A journey from the early days of cat videos to the current era of AI integration
A picture of 20th century fox studios edit with AI and 20th YouTube. (20th century fox studios/The NewYorkBudgets/kenzie Utopia)A picture of 20th century fox studios edit with AI and 20th YouTube. (20th century fox studios/The NewYorkBudgets/kenzie Utopia)
Twenty years ago this past week, YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim posted the very first YouTube video, titled “Me at the Zoo.”
“All right. So here we are, in front of the elephants. The cool thing about these guys is that they have really, really, really long trunks. And that’s cool. … And that’s pretty much all there is to say.”

Twenty years ago this past week, YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim posted the very first YouTube video, titled “Me at the Zoo.”
“All right. So here we are, in front of the elephants. The cool thing about these guys is that they have really, really, really long trunks. And that’s cool. … And that’s pretty much all there is to say.” Me at the zoo by jawed on YouTube
YouTube was so new that our Charles Osgood had to define it for “Sunday Morning” viewers back in 2006: “A website that lets just about anyone post videos for the whole world to see.”
Today, it doesn’t need explaining. YouTube is the second most-visited website on Earth, after Google, which bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in 2006.
Every single day, we collectively watch more than a billion hours of YouTube videos. Funny videos … how-to videos … cat videos. In these first 20 years, we’ve uploaded 20 billion videos to YouTube.
The most-watched of all? “Baby Shark Dance,” with about 16 billion views.

Baby Shark Dance | #babyshark Most Viewed Video | Animal Songs | PINKFONG Songs for Children by Baby Shark – Pinkfong Kids Songs & Stories on YouTube
And people aren’t just watching on their phones. “People watch YouTube more than they watch any other streaming service on their big screens in their living rooms now,” said David Craig, who teaches media and culture at the University of Southern California at Annenberg.
Craig says that a key moment was the day YouTube started paying people for making videos. “YouTube came along and said, ‘Why don’t we give you some advertising revenue in exchange for the fact that you’re helping us grow our service?’” he said.
Today, YouTube roughly splits the ad revenue with the creator, according to Craig: “It does probably change a little bit for some of the bigger-name players out there who they obviously need to make sure are very happy with the service.”
Those bigger-name players include Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal, creators of a daily show called “Good Mythical Morning.” Thirty-four million subscribers have watched their shows 14 billion times.

Season 27 | Good Mythical MORE by Good Mythical MORE on YouTube
McLaughlin described the show’s appeal: “Two old friends hanging out, where you can be the third person in that friendship. We kind of stumbled upon this secret formula for having people come back every single day.”
They may film in a traditional TV studio, but what is the difference between YouTube and TV? “I’d like to say our talent,” Neal laughed.
“A big part of it is responding to the audience,” said McLaughlin. “You’ve got comments, right? So, there’s ways that you can connect with people online.”
David Craig said, “Creators on YouTube, specifically, are not content creators. They are for-profit community organizers. They are using this platform to build online communities that they can build a dozen different business models off of.”
For McLaughlin and Neal, those business models could include tours, books, sweatshirts, hoodies, magnets and pins. “And you can start to go bigger and sell hair products,” said Neal. “If we’re gonna spend as much time as we both spend on our hair, we are going to monetize it!”
Nobody’s monetized it better than Jimmy Donaldson, better known as MrBeast, whose videos of colossal giveaways and physical challenges have made him the most-followed YouTuber of all, with 380 million fans.

Survive 100 Days In Circle, Win $500,000 by MrBeast on YouTube
Last year, Amazon Prime spent $100 million to produce a MrBeast game show.
I asked David Craig, “Is being a YouTube star now considered a greater ambition than becoming a television star?”
“I hate to tell you this, David, but that’s been the case now for over 10 years,” Craig replied. “They’ve been surveying young people, and they’ve all said they want to grow up to be a creator or an influencer more than a celebrity – or, I’m sorry to say, a journalist.”

From the archives: The early days of YouTube by CBS Sunday Morning on YouTube
Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal don’t think that the advertising industry has quite caught up with YouTube’s dominance. “If you look at the 18-to-34 age group, we outperform all of the other late-night shows combined,” said Neal. “But if you look at revenue that’s being spent on those shows versus our show, it’s not quite there yet.”
“And honestly, this is one of the reasons that we have really been interested in winning an Emmy,” McLaughlin added. “You know, we’re a part of the cultural conversation, as much as many shows that have won Emmys.”
Over the last two decades, YouTube has had its controversies, from collecting personal information about kids, to claims that the site is fueling a mental health crisis.
YouTube’s detractors also worry about the algorithm. It studies which videos seem to grab your attention, and feeds you more videos like them. YouTube has been accused of letting the algorithm lead people to extreme viewpoints.
“We have this enormous diversity of opinions on our platform,” said YouTube CEO Neal Mohan. “We don’t allow adult content. We obviously don’t allow spam and fraud. And we have policies to protect young people and kids on the platform. But it’s fundamentally a platform for freedom of speech. “
So, with YouTube’s 20th anniversary upon us, what are the next few years going to be like? According to Mohan, “One of the areas that I’m very excited about is artificial intelligence. You can tell YouTube when you’re creating a video, ‘Put us in Central Park, and change the background, and have these types of birds because it’s a spring day.’ And that magical technology exists today.”
I asked, “Is there something about evolution or psychology that makes us so interested in watching other people?”
“I think it goes back to we, as human beings, are social beings,” said Mohan. “We connect with other people. We are storytellers. That is what happens billions of times a day on YouTube. And it’s back to our mission: give everyone a voice and show them the world.”
“It’s a double rainbow all the way!”

Yosemitebear Mountain Double Rainbow 1-8-10 by Yosemitebear62 on YouTube
April 28, 2025
Judge Determines That Google Is a Monopoly in Online Advertising
Google has illegally built “monopoly power” with its web advertising business, a federal judge in Virginia has ruled, siding with the Justice Department in a landmark case against the tech giant that could reshape the basic economics of running a modern website.
The ruling that Google violated antitrust law marks the US government’s second major court victory over Google in less than a year amid claims the company has illegally monopolized key parts of the internet ecosystem, including online search. And it is the third such decision since a federal jury in December 2023 found that Google’s proprietary app store is also an illegal monopoly.
Taken together, the trio of decisions highlights the breadth of trouble Google faces, raising the prospect of sweeping penalties that could reshape multiple aspects of its business, though ongoing and expected appeals will likely take years to play out.
Thursday’s decision by District Judge Leonie Brinkema, of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, addresses the $31 billion portion of Google’s ad business that matches website publishers with advertisers. This “stack” of technologies determines what banner ads appear on countless sites across the web.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit followed years of criticism that Google’s extensive role in the digital ecosystem that enables advertisers to place ads, and for publishers to offer up digital ad space, represented a conflict of interest that Google exploited anticompetitively.
Brinkema sided with the Justice Department’s argument that by tying its ad server and publisher ad exchange together, Google was able to “establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets, she wrote in her 115-page decision.
But she also struck down one of the government’s claims related to Google’s online advertiser ad networks.
“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a statement following the decision.
“The Court found that our advertiser tools and our acquisitions, such as DoubleClick, don’t harm competition,” Mullholland said. “We disagree with the Court’s decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.”
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Google had argued that the Justice Department’s argument is “flawed” and would “slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow,” according to a statement from a company spokesperson after the lawsuit was filed in 2023.
However, Brinkema argued in her decision that Google’s practices have deprived “rivals of the ability to compete” and “substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.”
The decision could force Google to divest part of its online ad business. But the fact that the government did not win on all of its claims makes that outcome less likely, said William Kovacic, global competition professor of law and policy at The George Washington University Law School.
“The general idea in other antitrust cases is that the remedy has to be proportional,” Kovacic said. “The broader the finding of illegality, the deeper the finding of deliberateness… the greater the platform for a bolder remedy.”
Still, he said, Google could get stuck with a conduct remedy — such as restrictions on how it can operate or price its services — “that would not be good for them.”
Some tech critics and media organizations cheered the ruling.
“For years, Google wielded unchecked monopoly power over the digital advertising market – using it to suffocate the media industry and force middleman taxes on everything we buy online,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, who called the decision an “unequivocal win for the American people.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren said in a statement Thursday that the decision is “a big win in the fight to break up Big Tech … the result of years of work to rein in tech companies’ abuses.”
The decision is part of a wider push by regulators to check the power of large tech companies including Apple, Meta and Amazon in addition to Google parent Alphabet. Just this week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand in a trial over a blockbuster antitrust lawsuit in which the US Federal Trade Commission accused the social media giant of buying would-be competitors to stifle competition.
Thursday’s decision, Kovacic said, could “lend impetus” to efforts around the world to crack down on Google and other tech giants and “give them confidence to push ahead.”
April 19, 2025
Google Sets a Precedent with Swift Antitrust Defeats
Silicon Valley’s tech giants have long regarded antitrust scrutiny as an irritating cost of doing business. There will be investigations, filings, depositions and even lawsuits.
Yet courts move slowly, while technology rushes ahead. Time works to the companies’ advantage, as the political winds shift and presidential administrations change. That dynamic often opens the door to light-touch settlements.
But the stakes rose sharply for Google on Thursday, when a federal judge ruled that the company had acted illegally to build a monopoly in some of its online advertising technology. In August, another federal judge found that Google had engaged in anticompetitive behavior to protect its monopoly in online search.
Antitrust experts said two big antitrust wins for the government against a single company in such a short time appeared to have no precedent.
“Two courts have reached similar conclusions in product markets that go to the heart of Google’s business,” said William Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University and former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. “That has to be seen as a real threat.”
The Google decisions are part of a wave of current antitrust cases challenging the power of the biggest tech companies. This week, the trial began in a suit by the F.T.C. claiming that Meta, formerly Facebook, cemented an illegal monopoly in social media through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
The government has also sued Apple and Amazon over allegations of anticompetitive behavior.
And on Monday, the judge who ruled against Google in August will hear arguments on how to restore competition in the online search engine market. The Justice Department has asked the court to order Google to sell Chrome, its popular web browser, and either spin off Android, its smartphone operating system, or be barred from making its services mandatory on its phones.
Google has described the government’s request as a “wildly overboard proposal” that “goes miles beyond the court’s decision.” The company suggested that it should change very little.
In the ad technology case, the judge gave both sides seven days to propose a schedule for the next phase of the case, which will also involve remedies. The government is likely to ask Google to sell some of its ad tools, the antitrust experts said.
Antitrust enforcement has taken an activist turn in recent years, as both the Trump and Biden administrations increased their scrutiny of the biggest tech companies. But filing cases by no means guarantees success.
The triumphs by the government in both Google cases, the experts said, signal that the courts are finally grappling with anticompetitive behavior in digital markets. For years, enforcement lagged technology’s explosive growth, in part because antitrust law typically focuses on rising prices for consumers. Many internet services are free.
The Justice Department’s wins against Google are “important affirmations of the ability of the government to pursue major monopolization cases and prevail — something there has been doubt about,” said Nancy Rose, an economist who is an antitrust expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The goal of an antitrust remedy is to free up markets, creating a competitive environment that results in more new ideas, new companies, more innovation and lower prices.
The courts have long been reluctant to engage in the drastic surgery of a breakup. In the last major antitrust case against a tech company, the government reached a settlement with Microsoft in 2001, shortly after the George W. Bush administration assumed office. The agreement loosened up Microsoft’s contracts on personal computer software, which a court found to be anticompetitive, but left the company intact.
Google’s Android mascot at a trade show in Las Vegas. Divesting Android, the smartphone operating system, is one of the antitrust remedies that the Justice Department has proposed. Credit…Steve Marcus/Reuters
While the judges in the Google case will weigh breakup options again, the prospects are uncertain. Shifts in the political climate could also influence the outcome for Google, as they did for Microsoft.
So far, aggressive antitrust enforcement has had bipartisan support. The Google search case was filed in the waning days of the first Trump administration, and the ad technology case by the Biden administration.
“It’s pretty amazing when you look at the cases filed, the progress so far, and that the government enforcers seem consistently serious,” said Harry First, an antitrust expert at the New York University School of Law. “Maybe the tortoise is going to win here.”
Still, the Google rulings are early steps in an uncertain judicial process.
Google will appeal both, and has expressed confidence that it will ultimately prevail. The company contends that its strong market position in search and ad technology is the result of innovation and investment — superior products that consumers value — and not because of anticompetitive tactics.
Either or both of the Google cases may land before the Supreme Court, the experts said. Or the Trump administration could settle them.
“Trump is a deal maker, and that could be where this is headed,” said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School.
April 18, 2025
Google Acquires YouTube for $1.65 billion
Early YouTube homepage (2005)
Google Inc. is snapping up YouTube Inc. for $1.65 billion in a deal that catapults the Internet search leader to a starring role in the online video revolution.
The all-stock deal announced Monday unites one of the Internet’s marquee companies with one of its rapidly rising stars. It came just hours after YouTube unveiled three agreements with media companies in an apparent bid to escape the threat of copyright-infringement lawsuits.
The price makes YouTube, a still-unprofitable startup, by far the most expensive purchase made by Google during its eight-year history.
Although some cynics have questioned YouTube’s staying power, Google is betting that the popular Web site will provide it an increasingly lucrative marketing hub as more viewers and advertisers migrate from television to the Internet.
“We are natural partners to offer a compelling media entertainment service to users, content owners and advertisers,” said Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive officer.
YouTube will continue to retain its brand, as well as all 67 employees, including co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen. The deal is expected to close in the fourth quarter of this year.
“I’m confident that with this partnership we’ll have the flexibility and resources needed to pursue our goal of building the next-generation platform for serving media worldwide,” said Hurley, YouTube’s 29-year-old CEO.
“One of the problems with YouTube is that they’ve been known to carry copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holders,” Magid said.
But Hurley and Chen, 27, have spent months dealing with the copyright hurdle by cozying up with major media executives in an effort to convince them that YouTube could help them make more money by helping them connect with the growing number of people who spend most of their free time on the Internet.
While Google has been hauling away huge profits from the booming search market, it hasn’t been able to become a major player in online video.
That should change now, predicted Forrester Research analyst Charlene Li. “This gives Google the video play they have been looking for and gives them a great opportunity to redefine how advertising is done,” she said.
Investors applauded the possible acquisition as Google shares climbed $8.50, or 2 percent, to close at $429 on the Nasdaq Stock Market.
Several other suitors, including Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc. and News Corp., reportedly have discussed a possible YouTube purchase in recent weeks.
“This deal looks pretty compelling for Google,” said Standard & Poor’s analyst Scott Kessler said. “Google has been doing a lot of things right, but they are not sitting on their laurels.”
Google’s YouTube coup may intensify the pressure on Yahoo to make its own splash by buying Facebook.com, the Internet’s second most popular social-networking site. Yahoo has reportedly offered as much as $1 billion for Palo Alto-based Facebook during months of sporadic talks.
“Yahoo really needs to step up and do something,” said Roger Aguinaldo, an investment banker who also publishes a deal-making newsletter called the M&A Advisor. “They are becoming less relevant and looking less innovative with each passing day.”
Selling to Mountain View-based Google will give YouTube more technological muscle and advertising know-how, as well as generate a staggering windfall for a 67-employee company that was running on credit card debt just 20 months ago.
Since Hurley and Chen founded the company in February 2005, YouTube has blossomed into a cultural touchstone that shows more than 100 million video clips per day. The video library is eclectic, featuring everything from teenagers goofing off in their rooms to William Shatner singing “Rocket Man” during a 1970s TV show. The clips are submitted by users.
“What’s nice from YouTube’s perspective is that they don’t even have to pay for a lot of that content,” reported Magid. “Much of it is uploaded by people who just want to use the service to show off their talent.”
YouTube’s worldwide audience was 72.1 million by August, up from 2.8 million a year earlier, according to comScore Media Metrix.
YouTube’s conciliatory approach with major media has recently yielded several licensing and promotional agreements that have eased some of the copyright concerns while providing the company with some financial breathing room until it becomes profitable.
To conserve money as it subsisted on $11.5 million in venture capital, YouTube had been based in an austere office above a San Mateo pizzeria until recently moving to more spacious quarters in nearby San Bruno.
As its negotiations with Google appeared to near fruition, YouTube on Monday announced new partnerships with Universal Music Group, CBS Corp. and Sony BMG Music Entertainment. Those alliances followed a similar arrangement announced last month with Warner Music Group Inc.
The truce with Universal represented a particularly significant breakthrough because the world’s largest record company had threatened to sue YouTube for copyright infringement less than a month ago.
Li and Kessler expect even more media companies will be lining up to do business with YouTube now that Google owns it.
“It’s going to be like, ‘You can either fight us or you can make money with us,”‘ Li predicted.
October 10, 2006