You're kidding, right? By law, this is the modus operandi of any publicly-traded company. If you think any different, you've simply fallen for their rhetoric.
How would be "killing HTC Sense" not evil? How is Google not evil in requiring real names for G+ and banning people with pseudonyms? How is shutting down APIs (like translation) which developers have grown to depend on not evil? How is monetizing their search monopoly to undercut the business of other companies not evil? Or shaping with their mystical page rank the fates of a whole economy?
And on the other side: What is Microsoft particularly doing today that they are seen as "evil"?
I have a ton of respect for Google, but companies are neither persons which act moral nor are they nations for which you pledge allegiance. You get no real life karma points for defending them delusionally in Internet flamewars.
Another example of evil is cell phone carriers giving users high internet speeds but putting ridiculous caps on them. Or Apple banning apps from the app store then copying their functionality into their own software.
I don't know if Google has done or does anything like that, and that is why people tend to think they're 'better' than other companies.
Therefore by evil what is meant is the company using slimy underhanded tactics on competitors or customers (such companies usually use them on both). Maybe it can be expressed in one word: Cheating. Does the company cheat customers, partners, etc?
Having a privacy policy which requires your real name isn't evil. You are not being forced to opt-in.
Is monetizing your core product really evil..? I didn't expect to read an anti-business comment on a site such as this...
Whether this gives them any more leeway isn't clear to me, but Google is quite non-standard as far as corporate structure.
Fiduciary duty is an abstract concept that basically means a duty of trust. If shareholders are told that profits are secondary, you don't violate trust by not putting them first.