I enjoy a lot of what DHH writes, but I suspect the main explanation for Google product churn is less Google's choice (to the extent it makes sense to anthropom

I enjoy a lot of what DHH writes, but I suspect the main explanation for Google product churn is less Google's choice (to the extent it makes sense to anthropomorphize a giant organization) than he ascribes. There are all these smart people making things, inventing projects, coding, optimizing, etc. Google hires them, and they make things at Google. Google could fire them, directly reducing the churn. Or Google could change its incentives, take away the internal rewards for making new things. Either way, that would push smart people out, and they take their knowhow and understanding of how to google-scale with them. What helps Google more? All that innovation happening inside Google, even though many products get discontinued? Or having all those folks wander out, raise some capital, and 1% of the time their effort ends up seriously disrupting Google’s core businesses? My theory is: this kind of thing happens inside Google, and inside other tech giants (perhaps less visibly), because it is the closest there is to a sustainable equilibrium. Pay a lot of really smart people high salaries to keep them around, making things, rather than disrupting from outside.