For a very long time, Apple has not operated on the mantra of first-mover advantage, the benefits a company gains by being the first to introduce a new product or service to a market. Before the iPhone, we had Blackberry. Before the iPod, we had Sony Walkman. Before the Apple Watch, there was Pepple. But in all these categories, Apple won. Because Apple is peerless in understanding competitors’ misses and scaling great products.

So, when Apple comes into a category, it improves whatever that is there, scaling and owning the category. In other words, Apple is the grandmaster of first-scaler advantage, the competitive edge gained by the company that achieves the highest level of scale and market dominance within a specific category.

But there is one category that Apple’s playbook may not work if one waits a really long time to begin. That is the AI sector where Apple is well behind leaders like OpenAI, Google and Microsoft. But it seems the company  got the memo and wants to win, and there is one asset which has offered Apple a penalty at the injury time of the market soccer competition: “Apple is reportedly in early internal talks about acquiring Perplexity AI—a fast-growing AI-powered search startup—as part of its broader, increasingly urgent push into artificial intelligence.”

Apple needs to score this penalty if it wants to move to the next phase of this AI competitive era.

Apple Reportedly In Talks to Acquire Perplexity AI Amid Investors’ Lawsuit & Push for Own Search Engine

Apple is reportedly in early internal talks about acquiring Perplexity AI—a fast-growing AI-powered search startup—as part of its broader, increasingly urgent push into artificial intelligence.

According to Bloomberg, the discussions have taken place among top Apple executives, including Adrian Perica, Apple’s head of mergers and acquisitions, services SVP Eddy Cue, and other decision-makers leading the company’s AI efforts.

The move—still in its formative stages with no formal offer yet made to Perplexity—comes as Apple faces mounting pressure from investors and the broader tech industry to move more decisively into the AI race. It also follows a shareholder lawsuit that accuses the company of overstating its AI capabilities, a claim that triggered a staggering $900 billion loss in market value earlier this year.

The potential Perplexity deal would represent a rare pivot for Apple, which is known for building technology in-house rather than acquiring external firms. The last major purchase of this magnitude was its $3 billion acquisition of Beats Electronics in 2014. An outright acquisition of Perplexity, reportedly valued at about $14 billion, would easily eclipse that deal.

However, Apple’s options appear to be narrowing. While the company has been quietly integrating AI into its devices and services, it has fallen behind in the generative AI arms race dominated by OpenAI, Google, Meta, and even smaller disruptors like Anthropic and Mistral. Analysts have increasingly called on the company to consider bold moves—including acquisitions—to close the gap.

What Apple Wants from Perplexity

Perplexity AI, a startup positioning itself as the next-generation answer engine, uses large language models to provide citation-backed, real-time search results. Apple has reportedly discussed not only acquiring the company but also forming a strategic partnership. That could involve integrating Perplexity’s AI technology into Safari and Siri, dramatically reshaping the user search experience across Apple’s ecosystem.

According to Bloomberg, Apple has met with Perplexity several times in recent months and even explored a Safari integration—something Eddy Cue revealed during his testimony in the ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Google. Cue’s appearance underscored the stakes of Apple’s current deal with Google, which pays Apple roughly $20 billion a year to remain the default search engine on iPhones and Safari browsers.

But that partnership is now under legal scrutiny, and if regulators force Apple to unwind it, the company will need a robust, independent search engine of its own. That’s where Perplexity could become a critical asset—not just as a product, but as a source of high-end AI talent.

AI Talent War Intensifies

Apple, like its rivals, is deeply engaged in the ongoing war for AI talent. According to reports, it is even competing against Meta to hire Daniel Gross, co-founder of Safe Superintelligence Inc. and a former partner at Y Combinator. This signals Apple’s intent to shore up its AI leadership, especially after internal delays and public setbacks.

Earlier this year, the company postponed a major upgrade to Siri, part of its new “Apple Intelligence” suite, citing performance and integration challenges. The delay rattled investors and added to the perception that Apple was lagging in AI innovation.

The urgency behind Apple’s AI efforts has been amplified by a shareholder lawsuit filed on Friday, accusing the company of misleading investors by overstating the readiness and capabilities of its AI systems.

The lawsuit has brought further attention to Apple’s cautious AI strategy, which contrasts sharply with the aggressive rollout seen by rivals like Microsoft and Google. While Apple maintains a strong reputation for privacy and quality control, many believe that its secrecy and conservatism have left it vulnerable in an era defined by open innovation and rapid iteration.

Perplexity As A Key Piece of the Puzzle

Founded in 2022, Perplexity has quickly gained attention for offering a user-friendly, answer-focused alternative to traditional search engines. Its conversational interface, supported by citation-backed answers and updated with real-time data, sets it apart from competitors. The company recently raised $500 million in new funding, bringing its valuation to $14 billion.

Currently, Apple’s talks with Perplexity remain exploratory. But even the consideration of such a bold move suggests a major strategic inflection point in Cupertino. After years of AI hesitation, Apple appears ready to respond to investor pressure and industry momentum.

Amid soaring tensions in the Gulf following U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday urged China to use its leverage with Tehran to prevent any attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz — a move that has begun to upend the global oil market and further escalate the crisis.

“I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that, because they heavily depend on the Straits of Hormuz for their oil,” Rubio said during an appearance on Fox News.

His remarks follow reports from Iranian state media suggesting that Iran’s parliament is backing a possible closure of the key maritime route. However, the final decision rests with the country’s national security council.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow but strategic chokepoint between Iran and Oman, is the most critical oil transit route in the world. In 2024, approximately 20 million barrels of crude oil per day — about 20% of global consumption — passed through the strait, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Iran’s threat to block the passage has sent shockwaves through global markets. While many believe the U.S. Navy, led by the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, would act swiftly to neutralize any blockade, some experts warn that the consequences may not be as short-lived or containable as assumed.

“They could disrupt, in our view, shipping through Hormuz by a lot longer than the market thinks,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy and former White House energy adviser. “It would not be a cakewalk.”

Oil Prices React Swiftly

Global oil prices reacted immediately to the escalating standoff. At the start of Sunday’s trading session — the first since the U.S. bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan — futures rose sharply.

U.S. crude climbed $1.76, or 2.38%, to $75.60 per barrel.

Brent crude, the global benchmark, surged $1.80, or 2.34%, to $78.81 per barrel after earlier spiking over 5.7% to reach $81.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs and Rapidan Energy warned that if Iran follows through with a closure of the strait, oil prices could shoot above $100 per barrel, especially if the disruption is prolonged.

China Holds a Key Card

Iran exports an estimated 1.6 million barrels of oil per day — nearly 80% of which goes to China. That heavy reliance on the strait makes Beijing a crucial player in the unfolding crisis.

Rubio’s remarks underline growing U.S. expectations that China, despite its alignment with Iran in broader geopolitical terms, would intervene diplomatically to preserve its own energy security and global market stability.

“It would be economic suicide for Iran to close the strait,” Rubio warned. “It would hurt other countries’ economies a lot worse than ours. It would be, I think, a massive escalation that would merit a response, not just by us, but from others.”

Iran’s Response and Escalation Risk

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian responded defiantly on Sunday, saying the Islamic Republic “reserves all options to defend its sovereignty.” The statement came less than 24 hours after the U.S. confirmed a coordinated air assault on three of Iran’s top nuclear sites — marking the most direct American military action against Iran in recent years.

While Iran’s parliament has supported closing the strait in retaliation, the decision ultimately lies with the country’s Supreme National Security Council. That makes the current phase one of intense uncertainty, where rhetoric could quickly translate into action.

Closing the Strait of Hormuz would not only impact oil shipments but also those of liquefied natural gas (LNG), as Qatar, another major Gulf exporter, also relies on the route.

The geopolitical tremor has come at a time when global energy markets were already jittery over supply cuts, a sluggish Chinese economy, and increasing volatility from Russia’s war in Ukraine. Now, with a direct U.S.-Iran military confrontation and a potential maritime blockade looming, traders are bracing for further instability.

Analysts believe that whether the situation de-escalates will hinge on multiple diplomatic levers: pressure from China, strategic restraint from Iran, and a broader international response led by Washington to keep the strait open.