I've never worked at Google Brain, but I've been a research manager in tech for a decade, and nothing here seems surprising to me. It discusses the archetype of the well funded industry lab that is too academic and ultimately winds down.

The post makes sensible but generic statements based on the view of an IC. It tries to work back from the conclusion (Google struggles to move academic research into product) and produces plausible but hardly definitive explanations, with no ranking, primarily because there's no discussion of the thinking, actions and promises made at the executive level that kept the lab funded for all these years.