It seems every time Google ruins the user experience for its products, the reason is money. I guess that sounds obvious by now.
For example, the the size of the skip button on YouTube ads on Android changed so it only has the width of the seconds counter instead of including the "Skip in N" text. Before you could keep pressing the button before the timer ran out without triggering the ad, if you were impatient, but now you have to be careful not to accidentally click on the ad since the button is so small.
Why? Because it results in more accidental clicks, if so many people have the habit of tapping it over and over. Which means more money. At the expense of user frustration or worry over clicking it unintentionally.
Look at Dropbox's redesign. They slapped a bunch of completely useless collaboration tools that have nothing to do with my singular use case for Dropbox: syncing files. And that's because, as they say, syncing is a feature, not a product, so they probably had no choice to find new ways to "keep growing" and making revenue or simply die out. Because they can't afford otherwise. But Dropbox was the one company with the capital to fine-tune their algorithm so it "just worked" across network instability and numerous system configurations (until they dropped support for everything until ext4 on Linux at least), so that's what so many people used.
I believe that if the only goal was to develop a program to sync files across devices, then everyone at Dropbox would have declared all the extra features unnecessary. But people have to eat.
I keep wondering if the limitless pursuit of capital growth is worth the downsides. It can give us things like Dropbox, but ultimately Dropbox is not worth the hassle for me anymore due to the bloat. As a naive question, will there ever be point where we've had enough growing?