This sounds a lot like the Google approach, and I've seen a number of persuasive arguments that this is why they have 14 different, semi-competing chat apps and

This sounds a lot like the Google approach, and I've seen a number of persuasive arguments that this is why they have 14 different, semi-competing chat apps and shutter most of their new services a couple years after introducing them. I expect somewhere in the middle there's an optimal balance between a completely top-down approach and one with too little hierarchy. Of course the counter-argument is that Google still does quite well, but how much of that is due to their search and advertising monopoly, as opposed to the result of more recent innovation?