Infibeam gears up to make a strong comeback with new marketplace for Agentic AI
According to sources familiar with the development, the company is preparing to launch a global marketplace dedicated to Artificial Intelligence Agents, known as Agentic AI, aimed at developers, enterprises, and everyday users— with zero coding skills required.
The upcoming platform will allow users to build, buy, sell, and operate AI Agents capable of performing tasks autonomously, marking a sharp evolution from standard AI tools to functional digital co-workers.
The project is reportedly being incubated under Phronetic.AI, Infibeam's dedicated AI business unit, which has been operating in stealth mode over the past several months.
A query sent to the company remained unanswered.
Sources said Infibeam's last year acquisition of Rediff.com, once a household internet name in India, was far more than symbolic. After acquiring a controlling 54.1 per cent stake, Infibeam founder and chairman Vishal Mehta was appointed at the helm of Rediff - triggering early speculation about the group's broader ambitions.
At the time, Infibeam revealed plans to revamp Rediff into a consumer-facing digital finance hub and plans for rolling out offerings like RediffPay (a UPI payments app) and RediffOne, a comprehensive enterprise productivity suite.
However, what remained undisclosed—until now—was the parallel roadmap to re-enter the digital marketplace space via creating a marketplace for Agentic AI or AI Agent.
"Infibeam was always a growth-focused bottom-line driven e-commerce outlier in a sea of discount-driven giants like Amazon, Flipkart, and Snapdeal," a company source said on condition of anonymity.
"But the decision to focus into fintech with the CCAvenue proved prescient. After turning CCAvenue as one of the largest payment gateway brand, now, Infibeam is eyeing a fresh frontier - Marketplace for Agentic AI - as its next big leap."
Under Mehta's leadership—an alumnus of Cornell and MIT, and a former Amazon executive who once worked closely with Jeff Bezos - Infibeam is seen betting on deep tech rather than deep discounts. And this time, it's aiming to build a truly global AI marketplace where intelligent agents don't just generate text but execute workflows, automate business tasks, and function with human-like autonomy.
Infibeam's team at Phronetic.AI has been working behind closed doors on what insiders describe as a marketplace platform that's as accessible as a website builder but as powerful as an AI developer toolkit.
Users - from startups to enterprises - will be able to create agents capable of executing tasks across domains like customer service, finance, logistics, and more.
"Think of it as an AI workforce you can build without a single line of code," the source added. "The company is placing a big bet on the idea that Agentic AI is not just a trend, but the next platform shift after mobile and cloud."
As the company prepares to unveil its marketplace sooner, all eyes are now on how Infibeam will shape this next chapter - not just for itself, but for the broader AI ecosystem in India and beyond.
First Published: 1 May 2025, 05:06 PM IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Time of India
Imposing fixed timelines on Guvs, Prez would lead to 'constitutional disorder': Centre to SC
Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution and lead to a " constitutional disorder ", the Centre has told the Supreme Court. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency The Centre has said this in the written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly. "The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers," it has said. The note filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has argued that the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law. "The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head," the note says. Live Events The positions of the governor and president are "politically plenary" and represent "high ideals of democratic governance". Any perceived lapses, the note says, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through "judicial" interventions. The perceived issues, if any, deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial, Mehta has submitted. Challenging the decision of the apex court, Mehta has contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governors' and president's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. "When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution," Mehta has said. Despite the proliferation of checks and balances, there are certain zones that remain exclusive to either of the three organs of the State and cannot be trenched upon by the others, the note says, adding that the high plenary positions of governors and the president fall within that zone. "The gubernatorial assent is a high prerogative, plenary, non-justiciable power which is sui generis in nature. Although the power of assent is exercised by the person at the apex of the Executive, however, the assent itself is legislative in nature. "This blended and unique nature of assent clothes it with a constitutional character, whereby no judicially-manageable standards exist. Thus, despite the expanding contours of judicial review, there are some zones like assent that remain non-justiciable. The classical notion of judicial review cannot be lifted and applied to assent as the factors at play during the grant or withholding of an assent have no legal or constitutional parallel. The unique duality of assent, thus, deserves a uniquely-calibrated judicial approach," the note says. The top court has fixed a time schedule for hearing the Presidential Reference and proposed to start the hearing from August 19. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai has asked the Centre and states to file their written submissions. Asking the parties to strictly adhere to the timeline, the bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, has said it will first hear the preliminary objections filed by states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, questioning the maintainability of the Presidential Reference, for an hour on August 19. The court has said the Centre and the states supporting the Presidential Reference will be heard on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, while those opposing it will be heard on August 28 and September 2, 3 and 9. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. The president's decision came in light of an April 8 verdict of the apex court that was delivered in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills that were questioned by the Tamil Nadu government. The verdict, for the first time, prescribed that the president should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such a reference is received. In a five-page reference, Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. The verdict had set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governors do not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the president withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
SC slams NHAI over toll collection and poor roads
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for collecting toll from commuters despite unfinished roadworks and chronic traffic snarls, asking why citizens should be made to pay for poor infrastructure. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) 'Roads are in such bad condition…You are collecting toll but where are the roads? How do you start collecting tolls even without completing the roads?' a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran remarked, while hearing NHAI's appeal against an August 6 Kerala high court order suspending toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza for four weeks. The high court had castigated NHAI for 'total apathy' in addressing public grievances over persistent congestion along the Mannuthy-Edappally stretch of National Highway 544, and held that the authority could not demand user fees while breaching the 'tie of public trust' that governs its relationship with road users. At the outset in the Supreme Court, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for NHAI, pointed out that the highway concessionaire had also filed an appeal, which was due to be heard next week. He suggested that both matters be taken up together. But the bench immediately turned to the state of the roads, noting that they were in 'such a bad condition everywhere' that the very basis for collecting toll was questionable. Mehta sought to distance NHAI from direct toll collection, saying that the operation and management were the concessionaire's responsibility. Counsel for the concessionaire added that five 'black spots' identified by the authorities were outside the scope of the concessionaire's work, and that the high court itself had recorded compliance with all contractual norms. The bench was unconvinced. 'You should have planned for intersections and other measures before starting to collect tolls…You start collecting tolls even before the roads are ready,' it remarked. Mehta responded that work was underway to address the black spots, with underpasses and overbridges being constructed. The bench, however, pointed out that there were bottlenecks on the stretch identified in the high court's order, and even ambulances could not pass. 'In any case, the high court has stopped toll collection for four weeks. Resolve this. You are wasting time filing appeals,' the court said. The CJI also noted his own recent experience travelling on the highway, saying there were bottlenecks along the route. Mehta attributed some of the congestion to service road blockages caused by ongoing construction to fix the black spots, and requested the matter be listed the following week so he could present maps and photographs. The bench was critical of NHAI's delay in responding to the high court's concerns. 'The court has been after you since February, but you did not respond. That is how this order came to be passed,' it said, referring to reports in Malayalam newspapers about a man who left at 6am to attend his father-in-law's funeral but could not travel the next 30 kilometres until the afternoon, leading to a confrontation with those managing traffic. 'You must see it to believe it. Why should citizens be put to unnecessary hardship? It is for the NHAI and the concessionaire to resolve their dispute,' the bench added. The matter will now be heard on August 18. In its August 6 decision, the Kerala high court ordered the suspension of toll collection at Paliyekkara for four weeks, directing the Union government to address public grievances in consultation with NHAI, the state chief secretary, and the concessionaire. It criticised NHAI for ignoring repeated reminders since February 2025, despite the public being obliged to pay for using national highways. The court underscored that NHAI's duty to ensure smooth traffic without obstructions was integral to its right to collect tolls. 'The moment public trust is breached, the right to collect toll fees cannot be forced on the public,' it said. The Centre had contended that the issue was limited to a 4.8km stretch, with the rest of the 65km highway unaffected, and assured the high court it would resolve the problem at the earliest. However, the high court found a clear breach of public trust and ruled that toll collection could not resume until remedial action was taken.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
Perplexity's $34.5B Chrome bid: How AI is fueling the next browser wars
AI search startup Perplexity has made an unsolicited offer to purchase Google Chrome for $34.5 billion, a move that comes as a US court considers forcing the tech giant to sell its popular web browser as part of the remedies in an antitrust case that Google lost last year. Google parent Alphabet's share price held steady on Tuesday, indicating that investors do not appear to be taking Perplexity's offer to buy Chrome seriously. However, Perplexity's move is still significant as it is targeted at one of Google's prized assets even as the US government pushes to break up the big tech company. The $34.5 billion potential price tag also highlights the growing strategic importance of web browsers in the age of AI. Perplexity has positioned itself as a challenger to Google with its generative AI-powered search products. The San Francisco-based startup closed a $100 million funding round in July this year at a valuation of $18 billion, as per reports. Its offer to buy Chrome at nearly twice its own value has drawn skepticism from analysts, tech columnists, and others. To be sure, Perplexity has said it will seek the help of outside investors to fund the $34.5 billion bid for Chrome. The company added that it would not make stealth modifications to the web browser, and has further offered to invest $3 billion in Chrome and its underlying web infrastructure over the next two years if the deal goes through. But that is still a very big if. The deal would realistically be possible only if the US district court rules in favour of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and forces Google to spin out its market-leading web browser, among other proposed remedies. In a landmark antitrust ruling last year, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia held that Google had an illegal monopoly of the online search market. The case then entered the remedies phase, where Judge Mehta heard arguments from both Google and the DOJ on the most appropriate ways to address the tech giant's anti-competitive behaviour and create a more equal playing field for other search competitors. The DOJ, which filed the landmark case against Google in 2020, called for the company's divestiture of Chrome. It also proposed to prohibit Google from making exclusive search deals with smartphone makers and browser developers to set its search engine as the default. For instance, the company reportedly pays Apple over $20 billion every year to make Google Search the default search engine on iPhones. Another proposed remedy by the DOJ is to make Google Search more interoperable. This would involve the company providing access to valuable search data such as ranking signals, US-originated query data, and its search index at a 'marginal cost, and on an ongoing basis.' In its defence, Google has argued that 'the DOJ's proposal to break off Chrome — which billions of people use for free — would break it and result in a shadow of the current Chrome.' The browser would likely become 'insecure and obsolete', Parisa Tabriz, vice president and general manager, Google Chrome, said. Google's counter-proposal is to let smartphone makers and browser developers have multiple default search agreements. With Judge Mehta set to rule on the proposed remedies this month, there is blood in the water as AI companies like Perplexity move to challenge Google's search dominance by trying to take Chrome off its hands. How does this tie into the browser wars? The second, and more strategic reason AI companies are eyeing web browsers is the shift in user behaviour. People are increasingly turning to AI chatbots like ChatGPT instead of traditional search engines to look up information online. Eddy Cue, a senior Apple executive, testified in the Google antitrust remedies case that search volume to its Safari browser had declined for the first time in 22 years. Cue linked the drop in search volume to the rise of AI chatbots. However, AI chatbots lack user context. Unlike traditional web browsers, chatbots do not offer insights into a user's online activity such as reading articles, writing emails, online shopping, etc. Tech startups like Perplexity, The Browser Company, and even OpenAI are looking to fill this gap by developing AI native web browsers, where the traditional search bar is replaced by an AI chatbot or agent. To be sure, Google is also testing a Gemini integration in Chrome. Perplexity on Wednesday announced that its agentic AI browser Comet is available to all Pro subscribers in the US. 'We'll start expanding access every week going forward to make Comet generally available to all Perplexity Pro users,' CEO Aravind Srinivas said in a post on X. Comet is a desktop browser that primarily relies on an AI agent to respond to user queries with links to relevant websites. It comes with several advanced features such as the ability to describe an image on a user's screen or perform deeper research about a particular topic. Users can also prompt the AI agent within Comet to take control of the browser and autonomously perform tasks such as sending an email or posting on a social media platform. For Perplexity, the appeal of Google Chrome is most likely its distribution. Google Chrome has a market share of 70 per cent in the global desktop browser market and a 67 per cent share in the mobile browser market. It has around 3.5 to 4 billion users globally, as per the DOJ. While Chrome's business model is not highly lucrative on its own, it plays a pivotal role in Google's search flywheel. The browser gathers data that feeds into its search engine, which uses the data to show more relevant search results as well as targeted ads. Note, search-related advertising makes up a bulk of Google's revenue. Chrome could also serve as a direct channel for Perplexity to showcase its latest and most advanced AI products, where users can experience their capabilities without actively seeking it out. It is likely that other AI companies will also throw their names into the running. Nick Turley, ChatGPT's head of product, testified during Google's antitrust remedies trial that OpenAI would be interested in buying Chrome. While ChatGPT already has web search features baked into it, the company would be able to potentially bring its AI chatbot to even more users with Chrome. Brian Provost, Yahoo's Search General Manager, also testified that the company would be open to buying Chrome with the help of its parent firm Apollo Global Management. However, big tech companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon are unlikely to pursue Chrome as it would be difficult to pass antitrust scrutiny.
