Corporate political economy (ecology? anthropology?) is always pathological like this, one way or another. Seems inevitable, like factionalism and partisanship

Corporate political economy (ecology? anthropology?) is always pathological like this, one way or another. Seems inevitable, like factionalism and partisanship taking over parliamentary politics in every example we have. That aside, it kind of makes sense that Google places this much emphasis on the revenue producing parts of the business. On "what about new products and innovation" see the first point. While every corporate pathology is different (Google's flavour seems unique) a near-constant is doublespeak. There might be (or might have been) a logic behind it, it just gets communicated in corporate-speak because plain language is too harsh. Ultimately, at Google's scale (like a VC) a meaningful innovation is >$1bn annual revenue or the equivalent of that. Not many projects have that kind of potential. Letting a thousand flowers bloom means letting 998.3 flowers die.