[oh_fiddlesticks]

> 1. One is building the index, which is a lot harder without a google offering its own API to boot. If other tech companies really wanted to break this monopoly, why can't they just do it?

FTA:

> Context matters: Google built its index by crawling the open web before robots.txt was a widespread norm, often over publishers’ objections. Today, publishers “consent” to Google’s crawling because the alternative - being invisible on a platform with 90% market share - is economically unacceptable. Google now enforces ToS and robots.txt against others from a position of monopoly power it accumulated without those constraints. The rules Google enforces today are not the rules it played by when building its dominance.

[creato]

robots.txt was being enforced in court before google even existed, let alone before google got so huge:

> The robots.txt played a role in the 1999 legal case of eBay v. Bidder's Edge,[12] where eBay attempted to block a bot that did not comply with robots.txt, and in May 2000 a court ordered the company operating the bot to stop crawling eBay's servers using any automatic means, by legal injunction on the basis of trespassing.[13][14][12] Bidder's Edge appealed the ruling, but agreed in March 2001 to drop the appeal, pay an undisclosed amount to eBay, and stop accessing eBay's auction information.[15][16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots.txt

[dragonwriter]

Not only was eBay v. Bidder's Edge technically after Google existed, not before, more critically the slippery-slope interpretation of California trespass to chattels law the District Court relied on in it was considered and rejected by the California Supreme Court in Intel v. Hamidi (2003), and similar logic applied to other states trespass to chattels laws have been rejected by other courts since; eBay v. Bidder's Edge was an early aberration in the application of the law, not something that established or reflected a lasting norm.

[creato]

The point is, robots.txt was definitely a thing that people expected to be respected before and during google's early existence. This Kagi claim seems to be at least partially false:

> Google built its index by crawling the open web before robots.txt was a widespread norm, often over publishers’ objections.

[hattmall]

Perhaps it wasn't a widespread norm though. But I don't really see why that matters as much, is the the issue that sites with robots.txt today only allow Googlebot and not other search engines? Or is Google somehow benefitting from having two decade old content that is now blocked because of robots.txt that the website operators don't want indexed?

[ricardo81]

Agree. It was not standard in the late 90s or early 00s. Most sites were custom built and relied on the _webmaster_ knowing and understanding how robots.txt worked. I'd heard plenty of examples where people had inadvertently blocked crawlers from their site, not knowing the syntax correctly. CMS' probably helped in the widespread adoption e.g. wordpress

[embedding-shape]

> robots.txt was definitely a thing that people expected to be respected before and during google's early existence

As someone who was a web developer at that time, robots.txt wasn't a "widespread norm" by a large margin, even if some individuals "expected it to be respected". Google's use of robots.txt + Google's own growth made robots.txt a "widespread norm" but I don't think many people who were active in the web-dev space at that time, would agree that it was a widespread norm before Google.

[throw-the-towel]

Nitpick: Google incorporated in 1998, so, before the Bidder's Edge case.

[baggachipz]

A classic case of climbing the wall, and pulling the ladder up afterward. Others try to build their own ladder, and Google uses their deep pockets and political influence to knock the ladder over before it reaches the top.

[dylan604]

Why does Google even need to know about your ladder? Build the bot, scale it up, save all the data, then release. You can now remove the ladder and obey robots.txt just like G. Just like G, once you have the data, you have the data.

Why would you tell G that you are doing something? Why tell a competitor your plans at all? Just launch your product when the product is ready. I know that's anathema to SV startup logic, but in this case it's good business

[Nextgrid]

Running the bot nowadays is hard, because a lot of sites will now block you - not just by asking nicely via robots.txt, but by checking your actual source IP. Once they see it's not Google, they send you a 403.

[eloisius]

Cloudflare’s ubiquity makes bootstrapping a search index via crawler virtually impossible, but what about data sources like Common Crawl?

[monooso]

Cost, presumably. From the article:

> Microsoft spent roughly $100 billion over 20 years on Bing and still holds single-digit share. If Microsoft cannot close the gap, no startup can do it alone.

[kavalg]

Wouldn't it be nice if Microsoft opened the bing index for all.

[direwolf20]

Don't they? DDG and Kagi use it. I would think you have to pay money but it does seem like they're willing to get partners.

edit: this is wrong

[monooso]

This is incorrect. Kagi does not use the Bing index, as detailed in the article:

> Bing: Their terms didn’t work for us from the start. Microsoft’s terms prohibited reordering results or merging them with other sources - restrictions incompatible with Kagi’s approach. In February 2023, they announced price increases of up to 10x on some API tiers. Then in May 2025, they retired the Bing Search APIs entirely, effective August 2025, directing customers toward AI-focused alternatives like Azure AI Agents.

[specialist]

Now that you mention it...

It's odd that Microsoft hasn't aggressively pushed for "openness". That's in the usual playbook for attacking a market leader.

(And then pull up the ladder once you've become king of hill.)

Microsoft will probably never topple Google, absent anti-monopolistic enforcement. But they can certainly attack Google's profits.

[ricardo81]

There's one great example of a company that did that and managed to go viral on their release, Cuil. They claimed to have a Google size of search index. Unfortunately for them their search results weren't good and so that visibility quickly disappeared.

Going further back, AlltheWeb was actually pretty decent but was eventually bought by Overture and then Yahoo and ended up in their graveyard.

For everyone else it's the longer grind trying to gain visibility.

[baggachipz]

I forgot about Cuil! I really wanted to like it.

[ghm2199]

True. But the thing is if one says "We will make sure your site is in a world wide freely availabled index" which is kept fresh, google's monopoly ship already begins to take on water. Here is a appropriate line from a completely different domain of rare earth metals from The Economist on the chinese govt's weaponization of rare earths[1]:

> Reducing its share from 90% to 80% may not sound like much, but it would imply a doubling in size of alternative sources of supply, giving China’s customers far more room for manoeuvre.

[1] https://archive.ph/POkHZ#selection-1233.117-1233.302