[ctrl-j]

I'll admit, I don't work in the startup space. However, it seems to me that Google doesn't really run their products like a startup generally does. It seems like adapting your product to your existing client base is usually better than launching a similar but different product while your current one is live. Once you've fragmented your user base then shuttering one of your products and (hoping?) that the users who didn't migrate will finally migrate to your new product... that seems like a lot of unnecessary risk? Or maybe that's just the startup game?

I feel like if startups ran their business like google runs their products, they'd fail pretty quickly. Am I off base here?

[specialist]

Talent retention. All the side projects are makework, amusement, seduction. So the top talent doesn't wander off to work some where else.

[onion2k]

Is this true or is it what Googlers who work on the low priority products that will inevitably be killed off after a few years tell themselves to feel better about working on what is essentially shovelware clones of the latest idea someone else is having some success with?

Google are big enough and generate enough profit that they can afford to have entire divisions of developers who are kept around in case they're needed one day. That doesn't make those people good developers though. Obviously there are some very capable people on those teams, but if they're genuinely talented why aren't they working on Search or Ads? That's what makes Google money, so that's why the best people end up, not on little side projects.