This phrasing is pretty biased and something I most often see from product managers who are pushing changes that aren't in most user's interests. Many product changes that Google makes these days are driven by promotions and/or increasing revenue, not to make products better for end users. You can refer to all changes as "innovation", but it's going to sound unreasonable to most.
Also, characterizing people who object to one specific change as having "zero tolerance for continued innovation" is ridiculous and innacurate.
> something I most often see from product managers
I am not a product manager. A data point, to help adjust your bias.
> Many product changes that Google makes these days are driven by promotions and/or increasing revenue, not to make products better for end users
Can you be specific? In this particular instance, how does AI integration increase revenue? Again, I don't know what "promotions" refers to here. Feel free to be specific, if you do.
> You can refer to all changes as "innovation", but it's going to sound unreasonable to most.
I agree, that does sound fairly unreasonable.
> Also, characterizing people who object to one specific change as having "zero tolerance for continued innovation" is ridiculous and innacurate.
Again, we are in agreement: That would be ridiculous. And so is thinking of ways to integrate AI into Googles main product as "one specific change".
Also, characterizing people who object to one specific change as having "zero tolerance for continued innovation" is ridiculous and innacurate.