This article is a guy questioning the potential for profit in many of Google's recent business decisions, not an article to talk trash on Google.
I think there is something to the Google = Microsoft argument. Google has been trying hard for years to avoid seeming like an Evil Giant Corporation. Microsoft has seemed "evil" for quite a while and Facebook does too, but almost everyone seems to still like Google.
There is no way to avoid people feeling controlled (and other negative feelings) by a corporation that size, but Google does its best to seem like a "good" overlord that controls a lot of our lives. To that end, Google constantly invests in projects that have no potential for profit--generally relating to research or charity. It's similar to what Bill Gates does to not seem evil (with his Bill & Melinda funds), except with a corporation, which is much less common.
Releasing Android for free and some of Google's other business decisions are loosely related to a potential for profit, but all intended to integrate Google into our daily routines in a positive light. Google made Gmail awesome back when Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail were limited to 2MB storage (or something ridiculous like that). Now Microsoft regrets the blunder in not realizing the importance of having people signed up for your service. The bottom line is: It's tough to tell what will generate money down the line--all you can tell is what does and doesn't work. Android does. Chrome OS does not. In the meantime, all Google can do is return focus to innovation and make sure not to waste too much money developing dead ends.
Google is doing Microsoft's copycat stuff because it's big and out of ideas. Bing.com was a good idea. I think Google+ is good too. I'm sick of a lot of Facebook's clutter and, although Facebook is much better than Myspace, it's far from perfect. I expect Google+ to do better.
Note: Don't think I'm saying Bill Gates donates money for public opinion--I think he does it to be nice and help because he doesn't need the cash.