Well I didn't intend to write an essay proving something's that's fairly obvious. I think Google's intentions look harmless on the surface, but there may be some sinister consequences if they continue down this road. And at the very least, they have a bad PR problem on their hands because I can't be the only one left with a bad taste in my mouth about this corporation.
Google's strategy is to entice you to give up all concept of personal privacy. Yeah, nobody's forcing you to sign up for their services. But since Google gives away it's well engineered products for free, they are purposely making it difficult or impossible to build competing services that are capable of making money. They don't need to even compete in the marketplace based on price because they've adopted a "burn down the forest" strategy that's subsidized by their advertising revenue. Want to develop an online calendar/document editor/spreadsheet system? Better find a way to make it free to compete with Google.
If you want evidence of Google's vision, let's go step by step through Wikipedia's definition of "Orwellian":
Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.
If you use Gmail, Android, Google Search (all free products), Google will track and process your actions. I don't need to prove anything here, this is their business model.
State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.
If you were to use every Google service including Android, ChromeOS etc, they would be able to curate every piece of information you consume. This is what the Google Filter Bubble concept pointed out very clearly.
Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.
(not applicable)
The adoration of state leaders and their Party.
There was no end of media coverage about Larry Page taking over for Eric Schmidt. And even here on HN there are an awful lot of apologetic Google-fanatics and employees.
The encouragement of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are "doublespeak", and "newspeak"
I quite often hear people say "My data is safe with Google", and very clearly this turning out to be wrong.
The revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.
Google's censorship cooperation with China was fairly despicable. And they only started changing after they were publicly humiliated by PBS.
A (generally) dystopian future.
This is somewhat subjective. But I can't think of a better example of dystopia than if Google were to become an even more omnipresent part of the internet than search/advertising.
The use of euphemism to describe an agency, program or other concept, especially when the name denotes the opposite of what is actually occurring. E.g. a department that wages war is called the "Ministry of Peace" or "Ministry of Defence".
"Don't be evil".