When a Microsoft product didn't do well they called it something different and relaunched, hoping no-one realised it was the same old thing – e.g. Zune Music/Xbox Music/MSN Music/Groove Music/Microsoft Store etc.
Google now* just kills it and launches something else, sometimes more than one, hoping no-one remembers the still-cooling corpse of the previous attempt. For example, they're now on their ninth attempt [0] at a messaging service with no end in sight.
*Google Now is also dead.
[0]https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/google-ninth-attempt...
When Google Reader died, it reminded me not to become dependent on other peoples' computers. I had gotten lazy and was attracted to a well done tool, and it dying was a helpful reminder that I'd been suckered, and was lucky it wasn't something more important.
I've been better at not making that mistake since.
Most people are conservative like you. Your sheer numbers are why crossing the chasm is so important for the long-term survival of a new offering.
I love discovering and trying out innovative new products, and have made it a large part of what I do professionally.
However, some offerings I take more seriously than others.
With Google, if it's not search, data or ad related (i.e. the stuff that makes them money), it's generally the case it's not going to be around long-term.
Keep naming history went somewhere like this: Keep, Google Keep, Notatki Keep (Notatki for Notes in Polish). So I had to relearn a couple of times where they were.
Chromecast app had it even worse, because at one time it merged or became Home. Of course it had it's Google-prefix phase AFAIR. It probably went something like this: Chromecast, Google Cast, Google Home, Home.
I'm happy to use Gmail, which comes across as its own thing, but I might be a little bit more reluctant to use Google mail. I'm happy to use YouTube, but Google YouTube? I don't know.
Internet companies' names tend to refer to their flagship product, and become synonymous with it. But when they release other things with their name in front of it, like Google plus, it just sounds corporate.
Sure we do: Google Video was a competitor to YouTube that few used. Then they bought YouTube, and eventually killed Google Video.
Driven by engineers and not creatives. And even if you have creatives driving the product (naming or otherwise) it still won't make sense to the engineers who are the final deciders. [1]
[1] I don't mean there are engineers but that the base people who are in power come from or think like engineers vs. creatives. (Think Walt Disney vs. Eric Schmidt or Steve Jobs vs. Bill Gates).
Google has been worse at naming products than they have a right to be.