Microsoft and Apple are platform companies. Each product is intended to reinforce and expand the platform, and you see this reflected in that both companies have a diverse mixture of revenue sources. I think we can understand these companies as fundamentally having a strategy where the goal is to reinforce the value prop of "building on Microsoft" or "living on Apple".
Google, however, is much more of a one-hit-wonder from a revenue perspective. While Google has had many societally impactful products, they mostly do not move the needle on revenue. Google's revenue is 80% ads and 75% of that ad revenue is from search ads.
I think the implication of this is that because Google doesn't make money from their interlocking services but rather from their near-monopoly on search ads, the incentives for them to actually behave like Microsoft and Apple (where you can trust long term support) just aren't there.
Google, however, is much more of a one-hit-wonder from a revenue perspective. While Google has had many societally impactful products, they mostly do not move the needle on revenue. Google's revenue is 80% ads and 75% of that ad revenue is from search ads.
I think the implication of this is that because Google doesn't make money from their interlocking services but rather from their near-monopoly on search ads, the incentives for them to actually behave like Microsoft and Apple (where you can trust long term support) just aren't there.