zlacker

>It has been many years since Google has launched an innovative new product.

I can say the exact same thing about countless other large companies: Facebook, Intel, Microsoft, Boeing, AMD, AT&T, I could go on and on. At some point, launching innovative new products isn't really that important for a company, when many people on the services that company provides.

>>midori+(OP)
Google used to be considered different from and better than all the companies you list (except Facebook). Being lumped together with those companies would have been seen as an insult to Google in the past.

>>nether+G3
Times change, and companies grow and mature. Intel used to be a big innovator too, like when they decided making RAM wasn't the best strategy and decided to try making CPUs instead. They've come a long way since inventing the 4004.

>>midori+(OP)
It is if you don't want to wind up like IBM, i.e. - a company that could have been so much more, knew it had to change at the leadership level, and yet still couldn't get out of their own way. Apple's renaissance came because they started releasing innovative products and cannibalizing their own business.

Disrupt yourself before someone else does.

>>trilob+V7
Most large companies would just destroy themselves if they tried this. IBM is still there, decades later. Why is it not good enough to just continue to exist and generate profits, even if you aren't the highest-market-cap company on the planet?

>>midori+5j
Because once a company becomes publicly traded, that's not what the expectations are.

>>trilob+1M1
Decades ago, it used to good and normal for big companies to simply stay the same size, make a steady profit, and return dividends to their shareholders. That's how you get a stable society, not with constant boom-bust cycles.