[loudmax]

I think that is a reasonably analogy, but an important difference is that a startup has a strong incentive to be committed to their product. A startup may not stay in business for long, but we have an expectation that they'll support their product for as long as they can. After all, this product is a big bet for them and they really need it to succeed.

I don't see that those incentives even exist at Google. A well managed company would introduce new products that match the rest of the company's portfolio. When a product fails to gain interest, they would revise it and try to figure out how to provide customer value. There's nothing about Google's behavior in the past ten years that suggests that's what is going on there. From an outsider's perspective, there's nothing to indicate that Google is making any effort to follow through to make sure new products are successful.

[ddkto]

exactly - Google is acting like a VC, not a company. A VC isn't too worried if a large percentage of their investments go under, so long a few make it big.

It's like Google has the worst of both worlds: the upper management has the detachment of a VC firm, and the product teams have the detachment of being incentivized to start something new. At least in an actual startup, the team is committed to success.