That's missing the point of the article, which his update was added to clarify.
This article is NOT saying "why is everybody angry at Google for being evil? We can't forget about all these other evil companies!" That's the common problem a lot of articles like this one run into, but not this one specifically.
Tim's point is that "Google is /not/ evil. Google is doing something that may seem evil, but is in fact not. Google could do something in the future that may end up as evil, but that has yet to happen. To compare, let me show you an example of actual evil. [Enter Apple.]"
Apple is used to demonstrate what, in his opinion, actual evil looks like and how that differs from what Google is doing, therefore making Google's actions not evil. The Apple example (which could be Ford or Monsanto, doesn't matter) does not serve to to excuse Google.
This article is NOT saying "why is everybody angry at Google for being evil? We can't forget about all these other evil companies!" That's the common problem a lot of articles like this one run into, but not this one specifically.
Tim's point is that "Google is /not/ evil. Google is doing something that may seem evil, but is in fact not. Google could do something in the future that may end up as evil, but that has yet to happen. To compare, let me show you an example of actual evil. [Enter Apple.]"
Apple is used to demonstrate what, in his opinion, actual evil looks like and how that differs from what Google is doing, therefore making Google's actions not evil. The Apple example (which could be Ford or Monsanto, doesn't matter) does not serve to to excuse Google.