I think what you say is true, yet some base research takes time. If you have a “ship it” attitude, you might push teams towards taking smaller bets that they know are within reach? I don’t know how the transformer breakthroughs at Google/DeepMind happened, and it’s likely they were “shipping” things internally, but it seems clear that the people on those teams were working in a very different environment than what the author is describing.
If you look at all the defining products of Apple, they also took years from the “germ of an idea” until they could be launched, and though they might have “shipped” internally, they gained a lot by not having pressure to ship things piecemeal to customers.
Google Brain spent oodles of money developing that tech only to watch other people capitalize on the research and potentially make Google Search (one of the stickiest products I've ever seen) obsolete. Freeform, self-directed, open-ended research labs are certainly a great approach from a technology breakthrough PoV, if you have 2010s Google margins.
But it's not obvious to me that approach was even a net win for Google as a business. Did Google Brain invent the technology that killed Google? TBD I think.
I wonder what would be the alternative, though? Other companies/universities would eventually have made the same breakthroughs, and I don’t think the answer to the innovators dilemma is to do less ambitious innovation?
In the case of Google there’s a lot of internal reasons why they didn’t leverage this opportunity, but if they had done that they might have ended up making their main product even more sticky.
If you look at all the defining products of Apple, they also took years from the “germ of an idea” until they could be launched, and though they might have “shipped” internally, they gained a lot by not having pressure to ship things piecemeal to customers.