My best guess is that we see internal politics leak out. Product names are a "leaky abstraction" over organization structure. In the case of Google:

Chief Googler: "We need a payments product: Google Wallet"

time passes

Android Team: "Google Wallet does not fit mobile well and the Wallet team is in another building. Let's do our own thing: Android Pay"

time passes

Chief Googler: "WTF? Why do we have two payment solutions? Let us merge them."

Android Team: "We will not give away our control to Team Google Wallet! They have no clue about mobile."

Team Google Wallet: "We will not give away our control to Team Android! They have no clue about big business."

Chief Googler: "I just created a third new greenfield project. You will both cooperate there. Let's try if it works out."

Android Team: "Ok that works for us"

Team Google Wallet: "Ok that works for us"

time passes

Team Three: "Hey this actually works fine on mobile and big business."

Chief Googler: "Great. Now let's make this public. Oh, and ... Android Team and Team Google Wallet, you are terminated."

Essentially, it was a manager hack to make two teams cooperate. Names have a lot of power when groups of people interact.

(I have no clue what actually happens inside Google)