Re: Better if Google had not become involved
Better for whom?
It's pretty much inevitable that Google and its ilk will shower money on any organisation that offers some support, or at least apathy, in return (see, e.g., http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/23/google_lobby_why/) but it's not clear it's always better for a charitable organisation to have no income than to have income with strings - and that's the choice they often have in the current climate.
Of course, if Google paid what many people would consider to be its fair share of taxation, then this could be used for the public good without corporate strings being attached. Perhaps that would be better still?