One of the contradictions of capitalism is that a high-P/E and high-growth company like Google will inevitably close services and squash products that it acquires because it to maintain that high-P/E ratio they will be forced from time to time to get out of any businesses that can't sustain the great numbers that their core business can put up.

At the enterprise level, if I was tasked with vendor management with a company that was acquired by Google or Facebook I would probably call my sales rep right away and be like "you better post a performance bond" or "you better sign an escrow agreement for the source code" or "I talked with a sales rep at company B and he told me this and he told me this (what do you think about that?) and he told me this (what do you think about that?) and he told me this (what do you think about that?) (oh really?) and I would go on with that until he gives me at least a 15% discount or blows up at me and hangs up the phone."

If it was Microsoft I would feel the same way based on historical experience. Not so with IBM. They buy failing or market trailing companies that have something to do with "Watson" or "Cloud" -- generally they don't get any better, but they suffer from at most benign neglect. Generally they did not make the cut or we moved to a competitor years ago, but as notorious as IBM is for discarding employees, it does try not to leave customers out in the cold.