Isn't that just a result of public companies having to chase forever growth to keep their valuation?
A company starts with a product, sees growth and investors pour in with the expectation of accelerated growth (and hence profits), at some point their product can't really attract many more customers, it grows until the market it is in starts to saturate and growth slows down. They need to chase other verticals to validate to their shareholders they are still aa valuable and so it begins the slow downfall of the product, not necessarily of profits.
I really don't see another way given the incentives of the current crop of capitalism, a public company that stops chasing growth will see their valuation drop and with that the board might decide it's time for a new CEO. If the board sticks to their guns and stop chasing growth, a mutiny of shareholders will ensue to replace the board.
The incentives are wrong if what you expect is the best product ever, they're aligned to chase growth as the only metric and everything goes to Goodhart's Law from there.
A company starts with a product, sees growth and investors pour in with the expectation of accelerated growth (and hence profits), at some point their product can't really attract many more customers, it grows until the market it is in starts to saturate and growth slows down. They need to chase other verticals to validate to their shareholders they are still aa valuable and so it begins the slow downfall of the product, not necessarily of profits.
I really don't see another way given the incentives of the current crop of capitalism, a public company that stops chasing growth will see their valuation drop and with that the board might decide it's time for a new CEO. If the board sticks to their guns and stop chasing growth, a mutiny of shareholders will ensue to replace the board.
The incentives are wrong if what you expect is the best product ever, they're aligned to chase growth as the only metric and everything goes to Goodhart's Law from there.