I agree this is bad, probably unhealthy for the internet as a whole. But don't you think it's a far cry from something that could be considered "evil"? That seems like a gross exaggeration of the issue. Also, there is no leading of a charge. Larry Page isn't sending letters to Apple's Corporate Headquarters asking them to please keep all their protocols closed source and proprietary.
Everything is relative. Is it worse than kids in sweatshops? Of course not. Is it actively harming user experience, and reducing the quality of life of millions or even billions of people by some small degree, to the sole end of being anti-competitive? Yes. I think you interpreted what I said to the extreme. The world isn't black-and-white. I didn't even say it was 'evil,' I simply noted Google's unofficial motto which implies they do 'good,' and that this is a not-good thing, which only harms others to Google's purported benefit, to whatever degree you like. I do maintain that Google is 'leading the charge.' Once again, you inferred that meant Google was charging into battle and fighting to the last man. I in no way implied the degree of that charge. And I do maintain that Google, as arguably the biggest instant messaging provider in the West, holds a leadership role when they refuse to support encrypted XMPP, making it impossible to safely use their service with an open protocol. I don't object to people tilting at windmills, but I take issue when they write my name on them."evil"? That seems like a gross exaggeration of the issue.
Larry Page isn't sending letters to Apple's Corporate Headquarters