Would you consider Google or Facebook a charity, then?
Or the person at a sports event selling me beer? Are they a charity? I do want beer, and they are facilitating that...for $10/glass.
(I think that most people would not consider the beer vendor a charity, and since English is a living language, I think that the cited definition is incomplete)
Obviously I wouldn't call either "a charity" because charity used in that (comparatively recent sense) means a nonprofit.
Crazygringo's point is that there is a much older and more important sense of "charity," which simply means helping those in need. In that sense, Google is a very charitable project. In fact it is hard to imagine a nonprofit doing a better job.
Not a charity, but generates huge consumer surplus (i.e. makes my life better by a lot more than they cost).
If Google didn't exist, my life would probably be $20k/yr worse due to search, $5-10k for maps, and $3k/yr worse due to Reader. Maybe $500/yr for News. Google Plus not existing would make my life better (since people who post would post on fb instead, where I'd actually read them).
I dunno about Google's definition, but Merriam-Webster's makes it pretty clear that "charitable" involves giving, not making a mutually beneficial exchange as one does in the marketplace: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charitable
