> My point was that ideally we like to believe that research supports products, but generally speaking, most of Google research or Microsoft research papers are rarely applicable to their products.
I have no inside information here, but my hunch is that that's overly pessimistic. From the outside, we hear about DeepMind finding cats in YouTube videos or learning to play Atari games or Go, and it's tempting to say, "Google doesn't sell Go programs, so what was the point."
However, Google does do incredibly good image labeling in Google Photos. Their autonomous vehicles might eventually be a profit maker, potentially using deep reinforcement learning methods developed to play Atari games. Certainly, Google Translate and Inbox use ideas developed from their machine learning groups.
You're right that there's often a pressure to make internal research groups more profit-driven and more connected to the revenue stream that runs a company. Microsoft Research saw this happen to some degree 10 or so years ago. But Google's core competitive advantage is their ability to collect and analyze data. Data is the revenue stream that runs the company.
Also, I think the "independence" aspect of research is overblown to some extent. Almost no one is truly independent. If nothing else, you're subject to the needs of funding agencies. Typically, researchers just want the ability to work on problems that interest them using ideas they have some control over developing. You can do that inside a company, provided that company is interested in the same types of problems you're interested in. That's been the success of corporate AI/ML labs -- many of the best researchers want to go there because it's a steady stream of interesting work free from the need to do the constant dance for grant money.