Plus, we're talking about Google here, so this new desktop version was 99% likely to have been rebuilt as an MVP.
See: some of the Chrome feature requests about making things user-configurable (off memory, related to download / execute behavior for enterprise web-launched apps), which Google closed with "Adding a setting would be incompatible with Chrome's design goals"
Exactly the point the referred poster was making. Google does nothing without monetization in mind
Naturally, as is it is these days, any new product or redesign is conceived in terms of an MVP. You could argue that the industry as a whole has taken this concept far too literally over the last decade, to the point of being cultish about it.
I don't dispute the parent poster's point in general, I just think it's more indifferent than lazy/greedy/arrogant, unless it comes to search or ads. That's arguably worse, but Google's reputation for delivering increasingly mediocre versions of its products (or shitcanning them entirely) does precede it.
They're not the paragon of virtue I want them to be, but it sure fucking ain't Google.
My point is that there are shades and degrees of bad behavior. It's a mistake to handwave every company as equally bad.
That feeling is how you normalize horribly immoral things.
