Apple has reportedly held internal talks about acquiring AI firm Perplexity, which would mark a significant shift from its usual in-house development approach, though skepticism remains about whether the deal will proceed given Apple’s cautious acquisition history and Perplexity’s high valuation. The discussion highlights strategic considerations around owning versus licensing AI technology, potential legal challenges, and the broader competitive landscape, suggesting Apple may ultimately opt for partnerships or internal development over a large-scale purchase.
The video discusses recent reports that Apple has held internal discussions about potentially acquiring the artificial intelligence company Perplexity. Bloomberg broke the news, and it was also confirmed that Meta had approached Perplexity about a possible deal but ultimately decided against it, opting instead to partner with Scale AI. The commentators speculate whether Perplexity is actively shopping itself to big tech firms or if the news is being leaked strategically. Historically, Apple has not been known for acquisitions, preferring to develop technology in-house, so this potential deal would represent a significant shift and likely be the largest acquisition Apple has ever made.
The panelists express skepticism about whether the deal will actually go through, noting that while it’s not surprising Apple would explore options in AI given its current lag in the space, the company tends to be cautious with acquisitions. They highlight that Apple’s biggest recent deal was the $3 billion purchase of Beats, which is much smaller than Perplexity’s valuation. The discussion also touches on the broader AI market, emphasizing that there are many players and that deal-making is inevitable as companies jockey for position.
Valuation is a key point of debate, with Perplexity’s last funding round valuing it at around $14 billion as of December, and likely higher now. The commentators speculate on what Apple might be willing to pay, considering multiples and the strategic value of owning versus licensing AI technology. One argument made is that Apple might prefer to pay royalties or license the technology rather than buy the company outright, which would avoid regulatory hurdles and reduce risk.
The conversation also touches on the strategic implications of owning AI technology. Controlling the content and the AI models could give Apple a competitive edge, especially against rivals like Google. However, there are legal and ethical complexities, such as the recent lawsuit by the BBC against Perplexity over content use, which could complicate ownership or licensing agreements. The panelists suggest that Apple might be weighing these factors carefully before making any moves.
Overall, the discussion frames the potential acquisition as a bold but uncertain step for Apple. While it could be bullish for the company by accelerating its AI capabilities, there is caution about the timing, price, and strategic fit. The consensus is that Apple is exploring options but may ultimately decide to continue developing AI internally or pursue less risky partnerships rather than a large-scale acquisition at this time.
