You really don't have too much understanding of economics or the role of competition do you? Just to enlighten you over your apparent misaprehension that controlling a market requires overtly criminal activities such as you allude to, there are plenty of ways that a dominant supplier (and Google is most certainly that in this market) can control a market through means such as pricing policies, creating barriers to entry, buying up potential competitors and so on.
There are also plenty of structural means by which markets can become uncompetitive. Some are where certain markets are natural monopilies. For instance, it's extremely difficult to come up with a sensible market providing mains water pipes to the home (rather than sourcing the water - a different thing). In the area of computing, Microsoft where able to manage to reach a dominant position due to a combination of astute commercial decisions and the pressing desire of many organisations to have common means of exchanging data. That happened witht he combination of a standardised PC architecture, a standardised operating system and standard data formats, of which the most important was MS Office. Unfortunately for competition, many of the required standards for this platform were proprietary, hedged around with all sorts of IPR issues and less than platform-independent. Micrrosoft were able to extend this dominant position through the use of pricing policies, tie-ins, cross-subsidies, loss-leading, buying up key potential competitors, or undermining them by giving away products (a straight issue of cross-subsidy).
There are a number of simlar tactics being undertaken by Google. They are certainly in the game of giving away products, largely as a means of locking in further advertising revenue. Now this sort of thing can be in the short term interests of most people, but in the long term all organisations get fat, bloated and stuck in their ways. That's when the presence of viable competition is particularly important to encourage innovation. It's generally considered a bad thing to allow dominant suppliers to erect barriers to competition through what are broadly called anti-competitive practices (a term that describes a number of different commercial means which, whilst harmless when practiced by smaller suppliers is devastating when carried out by dominant ones) ,/
I think you've missed the little irony in the story - that it is Google making the point about the tie-up damaging competition when they are dominant. In a very real sense Google control the main market dynamics, and it is not necessarily about the quality of their products. Essentially Google only have one real product - in the sense that it is something they sell. It's delivering advertising - virtually everything else, especially the search engine, is a marketing tool to sell that product.