One of the first things Steve Jobs on returning to Apple did was to cull what he felt were unnecessary products, and product groups. You could argue that Apple is large enough now to have thousands of products, but what was clear is that Jobs had the defining vision and no single person can have a single defining vision of thousands of products.

To use your example you cannot create a camera division and not allow inter-group communication because you are then building products in exactly the same way as someone like Sony. You end up with disconnected systems, nothing integrates together well and in-fighting between the groups.

I remember looking for a 32" Sony TV a decade or so ago, and there were 5 or 6 different models all at slightly different price brackets and with different discounts everything became muddled. Sony of course were simply capturing every portion of the market they could, from the person who wanted the cheapest to the person who wants the best.

I'd like to see Apple re-focus, make single models of iPhone, iPad, MacBook, iMac and the Apple Watch. Stop trying to capture as much of the market as possible and just focus on a limited number of highly integrated devices.

Apple made multiple models of iMacs and MacBooks (and PowerBooks) under Jobs - I think this would be a horrible idea, for computers specifically you just can’t address everyones needs with one size of laptop/desktop screen.

Bad PR when you eventually close them down. See Google: they ran Reader for eight years and gave people plenty of time to migrate. Half a decade later, it's still used as an example of why they can't be trusted. Regardless of whether that's justifiable or not, it's an harm to the company's image. Better to just dump money into external startups (see Google Ventures) and then acquire them if they're interesting.

And from this we get the innovator's dilemma :)

The strongest one is talent dilution. If they poach talent from existing teams, then the new project must be more profitable to make that a good idea. Building a new team from scratch is not an easy task - you need management that can guarantee the same level of productivity/QA that other teams have. The team leads that can produce this kind of top quality are rare - why would you spend them on the niche market instead of advancing your main product? (unless they can find a leader who is only interested in the camera niche)

The second one would be the profitability of this niche market. Why wouldn't Apple just invest money in P&G stock(or whatever, I don't know much about the stock market) - do they really expect the investment into the camera niche market to bring better gains?

I know Procter & Gamble owns a ton of brands, and I don't know if there's any cross-effect when one brand fails. My suspicion is that Apple won't be able to get away with low scrutiny, even if they spin off their own "NotAppleAtAll" cameras. This may be a third concern for them.

Less related, but many of P&G's products are direct competitors, e.g. Ariel and Tide laundry detergent. Perhaps that's just not a business model that Apple is interested in pursuing?

Because the question faced by large companies, and even merely medium-sized and small companies, is not what can we do, but what's the best thing to do.

If I've got a product line with 100 engineers that is making me a million per engineer, and I've got a product line with 5 engineers making a quarter million per engineer, and I decide I'm going to hire 10 more engineers, even though it is true that I can't guarantee that the scaling numbers will hold when I add more engineers, it is still often the rational choice to assign those 10 new engineers to my very profitable product. In fact it can make sense to eliminate the product line with 5 engineers and put them on the really profitable product. The fact that I could do 11 projects with 10 engineers each isn't very interesting because odds are that the other 10 projects won't be as profitable, and I won't get anywhere near as much money.

Meanwhile, some other company in the market might very happily take on the less profitable, but still profitable, smaller niche. They can do it with different degrees of overhead, maybe in a different cheaper location, and perhaps with fewer compliance requirements bearing down on them, etc.

There are, of course, endless, endless nuances and "what ifs" you could play. This comment is not a course in resource allocation for business. It's just a comment intended to point you in the direction of answering the question "Why don't GooFaceZonaSoft do all the things?" in a reasonable manner. It also explains why GooFaceZonaSoft still acts resource constrained quite often, and why despite the fact the tech industry tends to develop very large giants at the top there's always, always a ton of smaller companies and there's never any risk that the entire industry is all going to consolidate into one big company, because the first thing that mega corporation would do is divest a ton of the less profitable sub-businesses, which would promptly reform externally.

If money could buy great products, Microsoft would still be relevant.

Apple continues to be unique and continues to be questioned as to the viability of their uniqueness.

(edit: clarity)