Written by
Perplexity Team
Published on
Apr 21, 2025
Choice is the Remedy
Every smartphone powers on with pre-selected apps you didn't choose: your browser, your search engine, your voice assistant, and other apps.
You don't have a choice. For Google, that's a strategy.
Last August, the US Government ruled that Google illegally exercised monopoly powers by controlling which apps are on your phone, and worse, which apps are NOT on your phone.
Google controlled this through elaborate contracts with phone makers and carriers. The terms of the contracts threatened OEMs and carriers with wide ranging penalties for not satisfying vague or arbitrary reviews by Google.
This week, Google will be back in court with the Department of Justice to determine what the remedy for this should be.
Perplexity has been asked by both the DOJ and Google to provide input on this case. That’s rare. It tells you this moment matters—because what happens here affects the future of innovation, not just in search, but across the digital economy.
When we think about a search product that's 10X better than 10 blue links, we also think about being a company that works better with OEMs, carriers, and partners of all kinds.
That's because the only way we (or anyone else) can compete after all the hard work of building a superior product, is to be chosen.
Consumers must be aware choices exist, and they must have the option to identify and select what's best for them.
Openness Is Working—But It’s Under Strain
It's important to remember how beneficial Google has been for consumers and for America.
The truth is, open systems like Android and Chromium have powered huge advances in search, mobile, and AI over the last decade. The value others have created on those platforms far exceeds their own value.
The heart of this case is that a platform is no longer "open" when it's accompanied by legal obligations to promote Google's products.
Android is a clear example. The operating system is open-source, yet Google's rules and revenue agreements layered on top are what made Google a monopoly.
If a phone maker wants to include any of Google's apps like Google Maps or the Play Store, they're required to include all of them. They also have to preload Google Search and Google Assistant as required defaults and limit alternatives for their users. Some carriers are even subject to a lower revenue share if Google just doesn't like what they eventually ship.
When these rules for OEMs and carriers first launched in 2009, Google required them to include 12 of Google's apps by default, ballooning to 30 by 2014. Today, six of them must be "undeletable."
This is especially bad because many of Google's apps are no longer the best at what they do (like search or voice assistance), or never were the best (like music or TV). In other words, mobile companies are forced to give their customers a subpar experience that Google demands to preserve its monopoly.
For consumers, even when they have a choice it's still a frustrating experience. Google's pet soundbite in interviews and testimony has been "the competition is just 1 click away." The reality is that the option to change your default search engine on an Android device is hidden in settings 4-5 clicks away from the home screen. Most people don’t even know it's possible.
That’s not what choice looks like.
The Remedy Isn’t Breakup. Just Let People Choose.
The issue in this case is that Google's vast financial resources let it stay dominant by simply paying to force a subpar experience on consumers–not by building better products.
In the proceedings this week, three remedies are under consideration. One forces Google to sell Chrome. Another forces Google to license its data to other companies. Neither of these address the root issue: consumers deserve choice, while OEMs and carriers deserve freedom to offer it.
The third remedy separates Android use from the requirements to include all Google's apps and eliminates revenue penalties for offering choices.
This solution is the simplest. Let people choose. Let phone makers and carriers offer their customers what they want–choice–without fearing financial penalties or access restrictions.
Without this remedy, the risk is obvious: Google can keep outspending everyone else to stay the default—even if someone builds something better. Consumers deserve the best products, not just the ones that pay the most for placement. This is the only remedy that ensures consumer choice can determine the winners.
We’re Not a Competitor. We’re a Choice.
At Perplexity, we don’t see ourselves as a competitor to Google. We’re building something different. We're trying to give people another choice: search that answers, assistants that work. AI that's intelligent, accurate, and trustworthy.
Some consumers will choose both Google and Perplexity. Some will choose one or the other. That’s what choice looks like in a healthy ecosystem.
And for OEMs and carriers: you shouldn’t have to pick a side.
Leaders and innovators at mobile OEMs and carriers should feel confident and safe working with us and with Google. Our apps can live on the same devices. We believe high-quality products should be allowed to earn a place on any screen.
The future of search is clear, and it isn't links for Google to sell traffic. It's AI that answers questions, completes tasks, and interacts with applications. Simply put, the future of search is much better for consumers.
Google knows this. So they've protected the monopoly power of an inferior product by hiding better ones from their own users–and forcing OEM and carrier partners to sandbag their own customers. Otherwise, consumers would choose the future.
To be clear, the risk for America isn’t that Google is too dominant. It’s when any company uses their dominance to limit consumer choice, especially when better options already exist.
The remedy to this problem is to prevent restrictive contracts that limit OEMs and carriers from giving consumers real choice. If regulators overreact in this remedy phase the alternative could be worse.
Chrome has rightly earned its dominant position in the market because it has been (emphasis on has-been) a superior product. For consumers, that made it a welcome choice.
For developers, innovators, and any American with a vision, that made Google a welcome inspiration. To innovate. To create a new choice and someday earn the same rewards of success.
We think Perplexity is doing that.
And if someone–even Google–builds something even better than us? That's the whole point. It would be an excellent choice.
Choice is the Remedy
Every smartphone powers on with pre-selected apps you didn't choose: your browser, your search engine, your voice assistant, and other apps.
You don't have a choice. For Google, that's a strategy.
Last August, the US Government ruled that Google illegally exercised monopoly powers by controlling which apps are on your phone, and worse, which apps are NOT on your phone.
Google controlled this through elaborate contracts with phone makers and carriers. The terms of the contracts threatened OEMs and carriers with wide ranging penalties for not satisfying vague or arbitrary reviews by Google.
This week, Google will be back in court with the Department of Justice to determine what the remedy for this should be.
Perplexity has been asked by both the DOJ and Google to provide input on this case. That’s rare. It tells you this moment matters—because what happens here affects the future of innovation, not just in search, but across the digital economy.
When we think about a search product that's 10X better than 10 blue links, we also think about being a company that works better with OEMs, carriers, and partners of all kinds.
That's because the only way we (or anyone else) can compete after all the hard work of building a superior product, is to be chosen.
Consumers must be aware choices exist, and they must have the option to identify and select what's best for them.
Openness Is Working—But It’s Under Strain
It's important to remember how beneficial Google has been for consumers and for America.
The truth is, open systems like Android and Chromium have powered huge advances in search, mobile, and AI over the last decade. The value others have created on those platforms far exceeds their own value.
The heart of this case is that a platform is no longer "open" when it's accompanied by legal obligations to promote Google's products.
Android is a clear example. The operating system is open-source, yet Google's rules and revenue agreements layered on top are what made Google a monopoly.
If a phone maker wants to include any of Google's apps like Google Maps or the Play Store, they're required to include all of them. They also have to preload Google Search and Google Assistant as required defaults and limit alternatives for their users. Some carriers are even subject to a lower revenue share if Google just doesn't like what they eventually ship.
When these rules for OEMs and carriers first launched in 2009, Google required them to include 12 of Google's apps by default, ballooning to 30 by 2014. Today, six of them must be "undeletable."
This is especially bad because many of Google's apps are no longer the best at what they do (like search or voice assistance), or never were the best (like music or TV). In other words, mobile companies are forced to give their customers a subpar experience that Google demands to preserve its monopoly.
For consumers, even when they have a choice it's still a frustrating experience. Google's pet soundbite in interviews and testimony has been "the competition is just 1 click away." The reality is that the option to change your default search engine on an Android device is hidden in settings 4-5 clicks away from the home screen. Most people don’t even know it's possible.
That’s not what choice looks like.
The Remedy Isn’t Breakup. Just Let People Choose.
The issue in this case is that Google's vast financial resources let it stay dominant by simply paying to force a subpar experience on consumers–not by building better products.
In the proceedings this week, three remedies are under consideration. One forces Google to sell Chrome. Another forces Google to license its data to other companies. Neither of these address the root issue: consumers deserve choice, while OEMs and carriers deserve freedom to offer it.
The third remedy separates Android use from the requirements to include all Google's apps and eliminates revenue penalties for offering choices.
This solution is the simplest. Let people choose. Let phone makers and carriers offer their customers what they want–choice–without fearing financial penalties or access restrictions.
Without this remedy, the risk is obvious: Google can keep outspending everyone else to stay the default—even if someone builds something better. Consumers deserve the best products, not just the ones that pay the most for placement. This is the only remedy that ensures consumer choice can determine the winners.
We’re Not a Competitor. We’re a Choice.
At Perplexity, we don’t see ourselves as a competitor to Google. We’re building something different. We're trying to give people another choice: search that answers, assistants that work. AI that's intelligent, accurate, and trustworthy.
Some consumers will choose both Google and Perplexity. Some will choose one or the other. That’s what choice looks like in a healthy ecosystem.
And for OEMs and carriers: you shouldn’t have to pick a side.
Leaders and innovators at mobile OEMs and carriers should feel confident and safe working with us and with Google. Our apps can live on the same devices. We believe high-quality products should be allowed to earn a place on any screen.
The future of search is clear, and it isn't links for Google to sell traffic. It's AI that answers questions, completes tasks, and interacts with applications. Simply put, the future of search is much better for consumers.
Google knows this. So they've protected the monopoly power of an inferior product by hiding better ones from their own users–and forcing OEM and carrier partners to sandbag their own customers. Otherwise, consumers would choose the future.
To be clear, the risk for America isn’t that Google is too dominant. It’s when any company uses their dominance to limit consumer choice, especially when better options already exist.
The remedy to this problem is to prevent restrictive contracts that limit OEMs and carriers from giving consumers real choice. If regulators overreact in this remedy phase the alternative could be worse.
Chrome has rightly earned its dominant position in the market because it has been (emphasis on has-been) a superior product. For consumers, that made it a welcome choice.
For developers, innovators, and any American with a vision, that made Google a welcome inspiration. To innovate. To create a new choice and someday earn the same rewards of success.
We think Perplexity is doing that.
And if someone–even Google–builds something even better than us? That's the whole point. It would be an excellent choice.
Choice is the Remedy
Every smartphone powers on with pre-selected apps you didn't choose: your browser, your search engine, your voice assistant, and other apps.
You don't have a choice. For Google, that's a strategy.
Last August, the US Government ruled that Google illegally exercised monopoly powers by controlling which apps are on your phone, and worse, which apps are NOT on your phone.
Google controlled this through elaborate contracts with phone makers and carriers. The terms of the contracts threatened OEMs and carriers with wide ranging penalties for not satisfying vague or arbitrary reviews by Google.
This week, Google will be back in court with the Department of Justice to determine what the remedy for this should be.
Perplexity has been asked by both the DOJ and Google to provide input on this case. That’s rare. It tells you this moment matters—because what happens here affects the future of innovation, not just in search, but across the digital economy.
When we think about a search product that's 10X better than 10 blue links, we also think about being a company that works better with OEMs, carriers, and partners of all kinds.
That's because the only way we (or anyone else) can compete after all the hard work of building a superior product, is to be chosen.
Consumers must be aware choices exist, and they must have the option to identify and select what's best for them.
Openness Is Working—But It’s Under Strain
It's important to remember how beneficial Google has been for consumers and for America.
The truth is, open systems like Android and Chromium have powered huge advances in search, mobile, and AI over the last decade. The value others have created on those platforms far exceeds their own value.
The heart of this case is that a platform is no longer "open" when it's accompanied by legal obligations to promote Google's products.
Android is a clear example. The operating system is open-source, yet Google's rules and revenue agreements layered on top are what made Google a monopoly.
If a phone maker wants to include any of Google's apps like Google Maps or the Play Store, they're required to include all of them. They also have to preload Google Search and Google Assistant as required defaults and limit alternatives for their users. Some carriers are even subject to a lower revenue share if Google just doesn't like what they eventually ship.
When these rules for OEMs and carriers first launched in 2009, Google required them to include 12 of Google's apps by default, ballooning to 30 by 2014. Today, six of them must be "undeletable."
This is especially bad because many of Google's apps are no longer the best at what they do (like search or voice assistance), or never were the best (like music or TV). In other words, mobile companies are forced to give their customers a subpar experience that Google demands to preserve its monopoly.
For consumers, even when they have a choice it's still a frustrating experience. Google's pet soundbite in interviews and testimony has been "the competition is just 1 click away." The reality is that the option to change your default search engine on an Android device is hidden in settings 4-5 clicks away from the home screen. Most people don’t even know it's possible.
That’s not what choice looks like.
The Remedy Isn’t Breakup. Just Let People Choose.
The issue in this case is that Google's vast financial resources let it stay dominant by simply paying to force a subpar experience on consumers–not by building better products.
In the proceedings this week, three remedies are under consideration. One forces Google to sell Chrome. Another forces Google to license its data to other companies. Neither of these address the root issue: consumers deserve choice, while OEMs and carriers deserve freedom to offer it.
The third remedy separates Android use from the requirements to include all Google's apps and eliminates revenue penalties for offering choices.
This solution is the simplest. Let people choose. Let phone makers and carriers offer their customers what they want–choice–without fearing financial penalties or access restrictions.
Without this remedy, the risk is obvious: Google can keep outspending everyone else to stay the default—even if someone builds something better. Consumers deserve the best products, not just the ones that pay the most for placement. This is the only remedy that ensures consumer choice can determine the winners.
We’re Not a Competitor. We’re a Choice.
At Perplexity, we don’t see ourselves as a competitor to Google. We’re building something different. We're trying to give people another choice: search that answers, assistants that work. AI that's intelligent, accurate, and trustworthy.
Some consumers will choose both Google and Perplexity. Some will choose one or the other. That’s what choice looks like in a healthy ecosystem.
And for OEMs and carriers: you shouldn’t have to pick a side.
Leaders and innovators at mobile OEMs and carriers should feel confident and safe working with us and with Google. Our apps can live on the same devices. We believe high-quality products should be allowed to earn a place on any screen.
The future of search is clear, and it isn't links for Google to sell traffic. It's AI that answers questions, completes tasks, and interacts with applications. Simply put, the future of search is much better for consumers.
Google knows this. So they've protected the monopoly power of an inferior product by hiding better ones from their own users–and forcing OEM and carrier partners to sandbag their own customers. Otherwise, consumers would choose the future.
To be clear, the risk for America isn’t that Google is too dominant. It’s when any company uses their dominance to limit consumer choice, especially when better options already exist.
The remedy to this problem is to prevent restrictive contracts that limit OEMs and carriers from giving consumers real choice. If regulators overreact in this remedy phase the alternative could be worse.
Chrome has rightly earned its dominant position in the market because it has been (emphasis on has-been) a superior product. For consumers, that made it a welcome choice.
For developers, innovators, and any American with a vision, that made Google a welcome inspiration. To innovate. To create a new choice and someday earn the same rewards of success.
We think Perplexity is doing that.
And if someone–even Google–builds something even better than us? That's the whole point. It would be an excellent choice.
Share this article
© Copyright 2025 Perplexity — Where Knowledge Begins
© Copyright 2025 Perplexity — Where Knowledge Begins
© Copyright 2025 Perplexity — Where Knowledge Begins