Well now you will be labelled an "activist investor"! :) I think this is an excellent question. I think Google has tried to be an incubator etc. And it's man

Well now you will be labelled an "activist investor"! :) I think this is an excellent question. I think Google has tried to be an incubator etc. And it's management have had a go at new products. That means hiring I think they have also been pretty big acquirers. That also pushes the headcount up. Cynically people also say Google acquires companies to stop those companies becoming anything. When you do that, you need to keep those employees on the books too (or they will just go re-found the thing you just paid to kill). Not sure how true that is, I leave it to the reads discretion. When both these sources of new services have failed, they have NOT fired people. Closing Stadia did not lead to firing 90% of the "Stadia Team". Ditto 101 other initiatives and take overs. It was actually a joke on "Silicon Valley" (the TV show) that no one ever get's let go by tech giants. No matter if they are useless or incompetent. So the head count is probably pretty bloated (I have no idea how many people are actually needed to run Google). And that brings us to actual Activist Investors and last months lay-offs. I think investors are finally calling for efficiency not growth. I think management are finally listening. I say finally not because I think I would have done it sooner, only because I think it makes sense in hind sight.