I don't see what you're saying. Big Pharm sells drugs to insurance companies. Oracle sells databases to CTOs. Monsanto sells weed killers to farmers.
Yes, these activities all have externalities; drugs would be better if people could pay for them themselves, databases would be better if programmers picked them out, and farming would be better if Monsanto didn't patent genes. But ultimately, none of these companies try to harm their customers. We just don't like them because we aren't their customers.
Google is in a weird position where they have two sets of customers; users and advertisers. Both need to be pleased, even though their interests are in conflict, or Google will die. So there's a financial incentive to be nice to users, and as a user, that means they should be nice to you.
I disagree with this. Users are not customers, we are the product. Google need only be slightly better than the second best option. Now that they have such momentum in search I don't see any reason why they need to care about users, only advertisers.
So, the same motivation as big Pharm, Oracle and Monsanto, then? That incentive doesn't appear to work very well.