Well Google has an incentive to make everything better, but they can't literally work on everything, so they have to pick and choose.
For example Google has repeatedly explained Reader was killed because "usage has declined"¹ So this validates my point: they put resources in developing a product, but it doesn't get enough traction, so they kill it and redirect their resources to other projects that will hopefully be more successful and provide more users and ad revenues to Google.
That example does not validate your point because it supports multiple hypotheses, including my hypothesis that Google is only interested in improving things which generate sufficient profit.
That's not your '"everything"' but my '"everything", except where it doesn't.'
In other words, they pick and choose.
FWIW, I also have inventive to make everything better, because I want the world to be a better place. But I too must pick and choose.
No, there is an incentive to work on everything. Given bandwidth constraints, there isn't sufficient incentive to work on everything at once. The fact that they have to pick and choose does not negate the fact that they have more incentive to improve everything than pretty much any company in history (with the exception of Facebook, perhaps).
For example Google has repeatedly explained Reader was killed because "usage has declined"¹ So this validates my point: they put resources in developing a product, but it doesn't get enough traction, so they kill it and redirect their resources to other projects that will hopefully be more successful and provide more users and ad revenues to Google.
¹ http://googlereader.blogspot.ca/2013/03/powering-down-google...