Though I'm tempted to agree, there is an old macroeconomic observation that might throw a wrench in the analysis, which is that the waves of new technology seem

Though I'm tempted to agree, there is an old macroeconomic observation that might throw a wrench in the analysis, which is that the waves of new technology seem to be coming faster and faster, and likewise, the turnover of companies in major stock indexes has also gone faster and faster. In an imagined hyper-accelerated future market where the trend continues, companies will be born, grow large, be disrupted and die in a figurative eyeblink. And Google's lifespan would be cut considerably shorter in such a circumstance, if for example something like Brave's business model were to hockey-stick and disrupt their golden goose. However, the counterfactual to that is that there surely is some kind of end to accelerating turnover in the markets. And it's a statistical rule; individual companies can be hardy survivors given the right circumstances and management, and companies with longstanding platform monopolies, like IBM, MS, Oracle, and now Google tend to have a lot more freedom to redefine themselves; it's the customers that get screwed, not the company. All the company has to do is find a way to move its customers to the next-gen platform, and even when they start failing at that, like IBM, they have a lengthy fall.