I'm honestly not sure i understand how your evidence supports your point. They did, indeed, have incentive to make everything better. That they later stopped supporting a thing does not contradict this, because they had the incentive to make reader in the first place.

Stopping support is, as someone said, not about incentive, but about later action.

The fact that they cannot focus on everything does not in fact, mean they have less incentive. It just means they can only do a limited set of the stuff they have incentive to do at any point in time.

That does not change the incentive itself.

If you want to argue "they only have incentive to do what is profitable in the first place", you would have had to argue "they could have made reader, but chose not to" or something similar. (IE they did not have sufficient incentive)

TL;DR your argument is misplaced. Google has incentive to make everything better. They only have resources to long term focus on things that make profit.

These are not contradictory statements.