Microsoft Is Quietly Building the Agentic Web — and It's Not the Same Game Google Is Playing

Google and Microsoft are both building infrastructure for AI agents — but they're not playing the same game. Understanding the difference matters, because one approach could unlock the agentic web while the other might lock it down.

Google's strategy with A2A (Agent-to-Agent) focuses on coordination — helping agents work together within controlled environments. Microsoft's approach with NLWeb focuses on accessibility — making the entire web discoverable and usable by agents.

Google's A2A: Building the Internet of Bots

Google's Agent-to-Agent protocol is designed for scenarios where you already know which agents exist and what they can do. It's optimized for orchestration — like having a travel agent coordinate with a booking agent, payment agent, and calendar agent to plan your trip.

The key insight is that A2A assumes a closed ecosystem. Agents are pre-registered, capabilities are pre-defined, and interactions happen within Google's infrastructure. It's powerful for complex workflows, but it's also centralized.

Microsoft's NLWeb: Making the Web Agent-Readable

NLWeb takes a fundamentally different approach. Instead of building a new agent ecosystem, Microsoft is making the existing web accessible to agents. Any website can expose an agent.json file and an /ask endpoint, instantly becoming discoverable and queryable by any agent.

The protocol is elegantly simple:

1. 1. Agent discovers a website's capabilities via .well-known/agent.json
2. 2. Agent sends natural language queries to the /ask endpoint
3. 3. Website returns structured responses that agents can parse and act on

This is decentralized by design. No central registry, no gatekeepers, no platform fees.

The Strategic Difference

The approaches reveal different visions for the future:

Why This Matters

We're at a critical juncture. The protocol that wins will shape how agents interact with the world for decades to come.

Google's approach could create incredibly sophisticated agent workflows — but only within their controlled environment. Microsoft's approach could make the entire web agent-accessible — but might struggle with complex multi-step transactions.

The question isn't which technology is better. It's which future we want: a web where agents are powerful but controlled by platforms, or a web where agents are free but limited by the lowest common denominator of web interfaces.

Microsoft is betting that openness wins. Google is betting that sophistication wins. The web will decide.