Local optimization beats global optimization. It's why Google went to the crapper too after it reached some number of employees. With 100+k people, no one cares about Google, but about their success within Google.
Someone at Amazon is meeting their short-term objectives and getting their bonus. "The brand" suffering is much more amorphous and harder to translate to a KPI.
Google search is worse because their revenue model requires optimising returns for their advertising arm, not for making a better end-user product. Shareholders demand it (in fact, this problem has a lot more to do with a public listing than team size).
The same is true of Amazon. Amazon’s shopping experience is worse because it is more profitable to be a logistics front-end for a million dropshippers selling specialised goods from tiny Chinese factories. The brakes are off and everyone with any influence over the company is incentivised to make the company more “efficient” (profitable).
(1) To assume high level roles, you must invest $LARGE_SUM_OF_MONEY in funds managed by the company.
(2) After leaving, you get back your money after $FAIR_AMOUNT_OF_YEARS. That's done as an incentive for folks to think long term.
Not sure how you could do that in a company as large as G or A though.
Google Search seems to be in decline but that has more to do with the slow death of the open internet than with any sort of internal issues at Google.
- the ability to engineer good products
- reputation
In the early '00s, most of the really competent people went to Google. Right now, most of the really competent people I know avoid Google, and it's sort of a second choice employer.
It has a lot of market power, but it's increasingly vulnerable.
The cost structure there doesn't help. High salaries+benefits / fewer employees was a good call. High salaries / 100+k employees is less competitive.
I can't predict the future, but I've been bearish on Google for a while.