Category: 3. Business

Artificial intelligence start-up Perplexity AI has made an unsolicited $34.5bn (£25.4bn) all-cash offer for Google’s Chrome browser, in a move that some analysts say is as much about signalling intent as it is about striking a deal.

The San Francisco-based company revealed the bid on Tuesday, reported Reuters, claiming it had secured backing from several large venture capital funds to finance the offer in full, although it did not name them.

Chrome, launched in 2008, is used by more than three billion people worldwide and remains a cornerstone of Google’s control over online search.

The timing is notable, with Perplexity’s approach coming our just weeks before US District Judge Amit Mehta is expected to outline remedies in a major antitrust case the Department of Justice (DOJ) won against Google last year.

The DOJ has proposed that Chrome be divested to restore competition, though Google has vowed to appeal, describing the remedies as “extraordinary” and “overboard”.

Perplexity, valued at $18bn in its latest funding round, is one of a wave of AI-powered search challengers seeking to disrupt the traditional search market.

Founded in 2022, the firm’s search engine provides AI-generated direct answers alongside links to source material, and in July it launched Comet, its own browser built on the same open-source platform as Chrome.

In its bid, Perplexity pledged to keep the open source platform, Chronium, invest $3bn in Chrome over two years, retain most of the browsers’ staff and, notably, keep Google as the default search engine.

Ben Barringer, global tech analyst at Quilter Cheviot, said the offer “is as much about making a statement as it is about securing a deal”, noting the $34.5bn price tag “is widely seen as undervaluing Chrome” and could be the start of a broader price discovery process.

The move also highlights the growing strategic value of browsers in the AI era.

“Whoever owns the gateway to the web holds influence over how information is accessed, prioritised, and trusted”, said Alon Yamin, co-founder and chief executive of Copyleaks.

Whether the bid is a realistic attempt or a calculated show of strength, analysts expect any forced Chrome sale to attract multiple suitors like OpenAI and Yahoo, if regulators push ahead.

But Google is likely to fight any divestment through a lengthy appeals process, potentially delaying such a decision for years.

Eyestem Research Pvt. Ltd., closed $10 million (USD) funding round. This funding was led by a strategic partner with notable strong participation from existing investors.¹

In reporting from India Entrepreneur, Jogin Desai, Founder and CEO of Eyestem, is quoted on this news saying, “This milestone strengthens our foundation for global expansion while ensuring patient access to transformative therapies.”¹

Endiya Partners, an early supporter of Eyestem, sees progress from laboratory research to late-stage human trials underscores the potential of Indian innovation to address global health challenges.¹

In June of 2025, Eyestem has announced the completion of its phase 1 study for its investigational retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cell therapy, Eyecyte-RPE. The company has submitted the results to the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), India’s national regulatory body for cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices, for permission to start phase 2 of the study.²

The trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Eyecyte-RPE in patients with geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to dry age-related macular degeneration (dry AMD), and according to the company, it has shown “promising outcomes in the initial phase.”²

The trial treated 9 patients in 3 sequential, ascending dose-level (DL) cohorts. The 3 DLs were Eyecyte-RPE at 100,000, 200,000, and 300,000 cells. Eyecyte-RPE is a suspension of human induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)–derived retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells.²

The company states that planning for a US leg of the trial is underway and is targeted for the first half of 2026.²

Ophthalmology Times spoke with Jogin Desai, founder of Eyesteam while on site at the 2025 ARVO meeting, which was held in May of 2025 in Salt Lake City. Watch this interview and learn more about the current trials Eyestem is conducting.³

Reference:

1. Eyestem Research Raises USD 10 Million. India Entrepreneur. News Release. August 12, 2025. Accessed August 15, 2025. https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/news-and-trends/eyestem-research-raises-usd-10-million/495782

2. Harp MD. Eyestem completes phase 1 study of Eyecyte-RPE in patients with geographic atrophy. Published June 18, 2025. Accessed August 15, 2025. https://www.ophthalmologytimes.com/view/eyestem-completes-phase-1-study-of-eyecyte-rpe-in-patients-with-geographic-atrophy

3. Desai J, MD Harp, Hayes H. ARVO 2025: Dr. Jogin Desai provides Phase 2 updates from a first-in-human RPE cell suspension trial. Published May 6, 2025. Accessed August 15, 2025. https://www.ophthalmologytimes.com/view/arvo-2025-dr-jogin-desai-provides-phase-2-updates-on-a-first-in-human-rpe-cell-suspension-trial

From April to June, Israel’s business sector contracted 6.2%. Private consumption dropped 4.1%, public spending fell 1%, and investment in fixed assets plunged 12.3%, signaling weakening confidence.

Exports of goods and services, excluding startups and diamonds, declined 3.5%, while imports, excluding defense purchases, rose 3.1%.

The downturn followed the June conflict with Iran, which began after Israel attacked military and nuclear sites on June 13.

Iran responded with missile strikes that forced many Israelis into shelters.

The United States joined on June 22 with airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. A US-brokered ceasefire took effect on June 24, ending the 12-day war.

Bank of Israel Governor Amir Yaron told Bloomberg in late June that the fighting was likely to cost nearly $6 billion or 1% of GDP.

Analyst Andreas Krieg told TRT World that overall losses could reach between $11.5 billion and $17.8 billion, around 2% to 3% of Israel’s economy.

Costly for Tehran

The conflict also took a heavy toll on Iran’s economy.

Krieg estimated Iran’s direct and indirect losses at $24 billion to $35 billion, equal to 6% to 9% of its $380 billion GDP.

The conflict also dealt a heavy blow to Iran’s trade: non-oil exports in June totaled $3.4 billion, according to Iranian customs statistics—a 34% drop from a year earlier.

Iran’s digital economy was also hit.

The communications minister reported a 30% contraction and losses of 150 trillion rials (about $170 million) in one month, attributing the damage to widespread internet restrictions imposed during the fighting.

Chris Hemsworth hits with another setback as his wellness apps has closed its Australia office this week.

The Thor star’s fitness app, Centr, has officially closed its Melbourne headquarters and lays off 15 Australian workers, as the company shifts its operations to the United States.

A spokesperson for Centr confirmed to 9News that the “Melbourne office will no longer operate, and only a few Aussie employees will remain on board in remote roles”.

“As Centr continues to scale globally, we’ve made the strategic decision to consolidate operations in the US to improve operational and geographic efficiency,” said an insider.

“This transition affects 15 roles, with a few team members continuing remotely as part of the US–based team.”

Nick Robinson, Centr’s digital general manager, stated that the “company plans to continue to drive towards business goals’ through ‘streamlining operations” and hiring top talent in the US.

The drastic move came over a year after Chris sold the app for a reported $100 million to HighPost Capital, a private equity firm co-founded by Mark Bezos, who is the brother of Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos.

Meanwhile, the layoffs raised concerns considering the Avengers actor was seen holidaying in Spain and Ibiza with wife Elsa Pataky and their children in latest weeks.

Foreign investor holdings of Treasuries climbed to a record high in June, showcasing sustained overseas demand for US government debt even as a slump in the dollar stoked concerns about sentiment toward American assets.

The US-made narrowbody, already in use for more than a decade, had reshaped the airline industry by making shorter routes cheaper and more profitable to operate. By 1988, when Airbus began producing its upstart A320, Boeing had built a formidable lead by delivering some 1,500 of its cigar-shaped best-seller.

It’s taken the better part of four decades, but Airbus has finally caught up: The A320 series is poised to overtake its US competitor as the most-delivered commercial airliner in history, according to aviation consultancy Cirium. As of early August, Airbus had winnowed the gap to just 20 units, with 12,155 lifetime A320-family shipments, according to the data. That difference is likely to disappear as soon as next month.

“Did anyone back then expect it could become number one – and on such high production volumes?” Max Kingsley-Jones, head of advisory at Cirium Ascend, wrote of the A320 in a recent social-media post. “I certainly didn’t, and nor probably did Airbus.” 

The A320’s success mirrors the European planemaker’s decades-long rise from fledgling planemaker to serious contender, and finally Boeing’s better. By the early 2000s, annual deliveries of the A320 and its derivatives had surpassed the 737 family; total orders eclipsed the Boeing jet in 2019. But the 737 stubbornly remained the most-delivered commercial aircraft of all time. 

At the outset, Airbus faced an uphill battle. The European planemaker, an assemblage of aerospace manufacturers formed in 1970 with backing from European governments, didn’t yet offer a full aircraft lineup. Infighting hindered everything from product planning to manufacturing, and leadership decisions had to finely balance French and German commercial and political interests. 

Yet it was clear even then that Airbus needed a presence in the narrowbody segment to firmly establish itself as Boeing’s top rival. Those aircraft are by far the most widely flown category in commercial aviation, typically connecting city pairs on shorter routes. 

Higher fuel costs and the deregulation of the US aviation industry in the late 1970s had given the European planemaker an opening with American airline executives, who clamored for an all-new single-aisle, according to a history of Airbus written by journalist Nicola Clark.

To set the A320 apart, Airbus took some risks. It selected digital fly-by-wire controls that saved weight over traditional hydraulic systems, and gave pilots a side-stick at their right or left hand instead of a centrally mounted yoke. The aircraft also sat higher off the ground than the 737 and came with a choice of two engines, giving customers greater flexibility. 

Airbus’s gamble paid off. Today, the A320 and 737 make up nearly half of the global passenger jet fleet in service. And the A320’s success contrasts with strategic blunders like the A380 behemoth that proved short-lived because airlines couldn’t profitably operate the giant plane. Boeing maintained that smaller, nimbler planes like the 787 Dreamliner would have an edge — a prediction that proved right.

Read More: Boeing’s Struggles Give Airbus a Chance at Aviation Dominance

Yet the longtime dominance of the two narrowbody aircraft raises questions about the vitality of a duopoly system that favors stability over innovation. Both airplane makers have repeatedly opted for incremental changes that squeeze efficiencies out of their top-selling models, rather than going the more expensive route of designing a replacement aircraft from scratch. 

Airbus was first to introduce new engines to its A320, turning the neo variant into a huge hit with airlines seeking to cut their fuel bill. Under pressure, Boeing followed, but its approach proved calamitous. The US planemaker came up with the 737 Max, strapping more powerful engines onto the aircraft’s aging, low-slung frame. 

It installed an automated flight-stabilizing feature called MCAS to help manage the higher thrust and balance out the plane. Regulators later found MCAS contributed to two deadly 737 Max crashes that led to a global grounding of the jet for 20 months, starting in 2019.

More recently, Airbus has been bedeviled by issues with the fuel-efficient engines that power the A320neo. High-tech coatings that allow its Pratt & Whitney geared turbofans to run at hotter temperatures have shown flaws, forcing airline customers to send aircraft in for extra maintenance, backing up repair shops and grounding hundreds of jets waiting for inspection and repair. 

Read More: Lost Decade of Planemaking Costs Airlines Thousands of Jets

With both narrowbody families near the end of their evolutionary timeline, analysts and investors have begun asking about what’s next. China, for its part, is seeking to muscle into the market with its Comac C919 model that’s begun operating in the country, but hasn’t so far been certified to fly in Europe or the US. 

Boeing Chief Executive Officer Kelly Ortberg said in July that the company is working internally toward a next-generation plane, but is waiting for engine technology and other factors to fall into place, including restoring cash flow after years of setbacks. 

“That’s not today and probably not tomorrow,” he said on a July 29 call. 

Airbus’s healthier finances give it more flexibility to explore design leaps. CEO Guillaume Faury toyed with rolling out a hydrogen-powered aircraft — potentially with a radical “flying wing” design — in the mid-2030s but has since pushed back the effort to focus on a conventional A320 successor.

The Toulouse, France-based company is considering an open-rotor engine that would save fuel through its architecture rather than the current jet turbines that push the limits of physics to eke out gains.

Speaking at the Paris Air Show in June, Faury called the A320 “quite an old platform” and affirmed plans to launch a successor by the end of this decade, with service entry in the mid-2030s.

“I have a lot of focus on preparing that next-generation of single aisle,” Faury said. “We are very steady and very committed to this.”

At the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, Binod Dhakal, MD, MS, an associate professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, and Leonid Shunyakov, MD, an oncologist/hematologist at Citizens Memorial Hospital, discussed the application of talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The discussion, part of a Between the Lines^® program hosted by CancerNetwork^®, centered on updated results from the phase 1/2 MonumenTAL-1 trial (NCT03399799; NCT04634552) shared at the meeting.¹

Talquetamab has a unique place in the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma as it is the only approved bispecific antibody targeting GPRC5D for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Regarding this mechanism of action, Dhakal said, “The exact function and mechanism of this target is not understood; however, we know it is expressed heavily on the malignant plasma cells, much more than the normal plasma cells.”

Updated Efficacy

With an extended median follow-up ranging from 30 to 38 months, the trial’s results continued to demonstrate consistent or improved efficacy and safety outcomes.

Patients in the trial were assigned to 1 of 3 treatment cohorts: the first (weekly dosing) enrolled patients who were naive to T-cell redirection therapy (TCR) and received 0.4 mg/kg of subcutaneous talquetamab once weekly (n = 143), the second (every 2-week dosing) enrolled patients who were TCR-naive who were administered 0.8 mg/kg of subcutaneous talquetamab once every 2 weeks (n = 154), and the third (prior TCR weekly and every 2-week dosing) enrolled patients who received prior TCR and were administered either 0.4 mg/kg once weekly or 0.8 mg/kg once every 2 weeks (n = 78).

In the first cohort, the overall response rate (ORR) was 74.1%, with a complete response (CR) or better rate of 32.9%, a very good partial response (VGPR) rate of 26.6%, and a PR rate of 14.7%. In the second cohort, the ORR was 69.5%, with a CR or better rate of 40.3%, a VGPR rate of 18.8%, and a PR rate of 10.4%. In the third cohort, the ORR was 66.7%, with a CR or better rate of 42.3%, a VGPR rate of 12.8%, and a PR rate of 11.5%.

Notably, however, in the first and second cohorts, the patients were naive to TCR, whereas in the third cohort, they received prior TCR. Shunyakov said, “It’s pretty incredible to see that the response rate in patients who had prior exposure to T-cell–redirected therapy is about the same as in patients who are naive to TCR.”

Further, the median duration of response (DOR) was 9.5 months (95% CI, 6.7-13.4) in the first cohort, 17.5 months (95% CI, 12.5-25.1) in the second cohort, and 19.2 months (95% CI, 8.1-24.7) in the third cohort.

“If you look at the durability of response, that is where the significance of this product comes in,” said Dhakal. “If you look at the 0.8 mg/kg [subcutaneous] every other week, your median DOR is almost 18 months. That is quite impressive.”

He emphasized the similarity in DORs between the second cohort, which did not receive prior TCR, and the third cohort, which did. Shunyakov agreed that the positivity of these results, especially in the prior TCR cohort, was impressive. With these high and durable responses in this group of patients with an unmet need for new therapies, it is crucial to consider talquetamab for treatment, according to Dhakal.

Dhakal also pointed out that data from the benchmark studies from when CAR T-cell therapies were initially developed—the MAMMOTH and LocoMMotion (NCT04035226) studies—showed an overall survival (OS) of less than a year.

MonumenTAL-1 data significantly improved on that by showing prolonged survival in the same unexposed patient population and also in patients with prior exposure to T-cell–directed therapies.

The findings showed a median OS of 34.0 months (95% CI, 25.6-not estimable [NE]) in the first cohort, not reached (95% CI, NE-NE) in the second cohort, and 28.3 months (95% CI, 19.5-NE) in the third cohort. The respective 36-month OS rates were 49.3% (95% CI, 40.4%-57.6%), 60.8% (95% CI, 51.5%-68.8%), and 44.6% (95% CI, 31.4%-57.0%).

“In terms of overall survival, [these] data [are] unprecedented,” Shunyakov added.

In cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.5 months (95% CI, 5.7-9.4), 11.2 months (95% CI, 7.7-14.6), and 7.7 months (95% CI, 4.1-14.5).

Both clinicians also discussed the heavily pretreated patient population of the trial, as having 3 or more therapies was a requirement to enroll in phase 2; in the TCR-naive population, the median number of lines of therapy was 5, and in the TCR-exposed population, it was 6. Considering the positive data, even in this population, Shunyakov said it would be good to consider moving talquetamab up and treating patients with it as soon as possible. Dhakal highlighted that, as with most highly effective therapies, if you move them earlier, they will elicit better responses.

He also noted that, as patients require more lines of therapy, they are more likely to drop out of treatment, so waiting to administer it may be inadvertently preventing many patients from having the opportunity to receive this therapy.

The Dosing Schedule

With the trial broken down into 3 cohorts, several trends were noticeable. The first Shunyakov mentioned was how the weekly dosing schedule in the first cohort elicited higher responses, whereas the biweekly dosing schedule from cohort 2 demonstrated prolonged OS and PFS.

This likely means that biweekly dosing was better tolerated, and thus, patients can stay on treatment longer and continue to derive benefit. In his practice, Shunyakov has been administering talquetamab in the biweekly dosing schedule, almost from the beginning.

They do this because talquetamab can lead to mucositis, skin problems, and weight loss, which can become serious issues if they overadminister the drug.

Dhakal also uses the 0.8-mg/kg biweekly dosing schedule because it is convenient for the patient, and if the patient maintains their response, they may change to monthly dosing. According to him, no observable difference exists between the weekly and biweekly schedules regarding controlling the disease.

“There are no clinical predictors that will help you choose one dose vs another, but 0.8 mg/kg seems to be more friendly for the patient,” said Dhakal.

Shunyakov also stated that, in patients with prior exposure to BCMA, his next choice for therapy would be to target GPRC5D.

Updated Safety Profile

At the extended follow-up, the safety profile remained consistent with what was previously seen. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) remained low, and no new discontinuations were observed due to GPRC5D-related AEs. However, a new safety signal, ataxia/balance disorders, was identified in association with talquetamab and had a low prevalence in MonumenTAL-1. The most common AEs of grades 3 and 4 were cytopenias, and there were no reported treatment-related deaths due to talquetamab.

Both doctors emphasized the infection-related AEs. Any-grade and grade 3/4 infections occurred in 61% and 23% of cohort 1, 71% and 21% of cohort 2, and 78% and 26% of cohort 3, respectively.

Although these rates are significant, Shunyakov compared them with the infection rates of BCMA-directed bispecific antibodies, which are close to 70% for any grade and 50% for grades 3/4. As he said, talquetamab is favorable. He attributed this to the mechanism of action of talquetamab because it primarily targets multiple myeloma cells rather than other plasma cells, which have very minimal or no effect on the healthy B lymphocytes. He added that he may even prefer talquetamab before a BCMA-
directed bispecific antibody due to the lower rate of infections.

For prophylaxis, although patients who receive BCMA-
directed bispecific antibodies almost always receive intravenous immunoglobulin replacement therapy, when patients who received talquetamab are several months into treatment, their immunoglobulin levels increase in most cases. In other words, most patients receiving talquetamab receive prophylaxis early on in treatment but may discontinue it later.

The new safety signal, ataxia/balance disorders, was also a point of conversation. Although neither doctor has seen it in practice yet, they have made it a point to tell their patients that it is a potential new toxicity that can be debilitating, even if it only occurs in less than 1% of patients.

Reference

Rasche L, Schinke CD, Touzeau C, et al. Efficacy and safety from the phase 1/2 MonumenTAL-1 study of talquetamab, a GPRC5D×CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: analyses at an extended median follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 16):7528. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.7528

Explore MediaCo Holding’s Fair Values from the Community and select yours

While it may not be enough for some shareholders, we think it is good to see the MediaCo Holding Inc. (NASDAQ:MDIA) share price up 28% in a single quarter. But will that heal all the wounds inflicted over 5 years of declines? Unlikely. In fact, the share price has tumbled down a mountain to land 71% lower after that period. It’s true that the recent bounce could signal the company is turning over a new leaf, but we are not so sure. The fundamental business performance will ultimately determine if the turnaround can be sustained.

Since shareholders are down over the longer term, lets look at the underlying fundamentals over the that time and see if they’ve been consistent with returns.

We’ve found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free.

While the efficient markets hypothesis continues to be taught by some, it has been proven that markets are over-reactive dynamic systems, and investors are not always rational. One flawed but reasonable way to assess how sentiment around a company has changed is to compare the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price.

During five years of share price growth, MediaCo Holding moved from a loss to profitability. That would generally be considered a positive, so we are surprised to see the share price is down. Other metrics may better explain the share price move.

In contrast to the share price, revenue has actually increased by 20% a year in the five year period. So it seems one might have to take closer look at the fundamentals to understand why the share price languishes. After all, there may be an opportunity.

The company’s revenue and earnings (over time) are depicted in the image below (click to see the exact numbers).

If you are thinking of buying or selling MediaCo Holding stock, you should check out this FREE detailed report on its balance sheet.

While the broader market gained around 19% in the last year, MediaCo Holding shareholders lost 70%. Even the share prices of good stocks drop sometimes, but we want to see improvements in the fundamental metrics of a business, before getting too interested. Unfortunately, last year’s performance may indicate unresolved challenges, given that it was worse than the annualised loss of 11% over the last half decade. Generally speaking long term share price weakness can be a bad sign, though contrarian investors might want to research the stock in hope of a turnaround. I find it very interesting to look at share price over the long term as a proxy for business performance. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Consider for instance, the ever-present spectre of investment risk. We’ve identified 4 warning signs with MediaCo Holding (at least 2 which can’t be ignored) , and understanding them should be part of your investment process.

Story Continues