Erm, no. While I don't consider Google to be a particularly charitable organization, they do regularly open source their products (though mostly minor ones, as you rightly pointed out) when there is no legal obligation on them to do so.
The reason for that is perfectly clear, too: it strengthens the image of Google as both "geeky" and "open" tech company, which are both important parts of Google's public image.
It's not just public image. There's also the fact that Google is a company full of geeks, many of whom are open source fans in their own right.
I was primarily responsible for Google releasing Protocol Buffers. I did it not for the sake of improving my employer's public image, but because I thought it was a useful tool that should be shared, and those around me agreed. Because of the bottom-up nature of decision making at Google -- and given that I was willing to do the work -- I had no trouble pushing this through.
So yeah, it's pretty upsetting to me to see people say things like "Google does only care about OSS when it suits them and drops out instantly when it doesn't.". This kind of statement completely misunderstands how Google even works. This just isn't the kind of company where orders comes down from executives on high with the only motive being profit -- anyone who thinks otherwise obviously doesn't work here.
Honestly, I think the main reason we haven't released more stuff is because it's kind of a lot of work (as I have learned). Dumping code over a wall does not please the open source community -- you have to maintain it; document it; test it on a zillion platforms; answer e-mail from people who think they are not just entitled to your code, but are doing *you* a favor by using it; review patches from college kids who don't really know what they're doing; etc.
(Oblig. disclaimer: These are my own personal opinions; I am not authorized to speak for my employer.)
How many NASA managers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? "That's a known problem... don't worry about it."