"That's an abuse of monopoly, and that's what the target is. "
Actually, the situation you describe is not abuse of a monopoly unless you were the one who made the roads everywhere only work with your tyres.
"Look at that fact that Google products are starting to demand Chrome, or to push their other services through their monopoly search engine."
Assume for a second this was true. This is not monopoly abuse because it's not related to the area in which they have significant market share (unless you plan on trying to argue that in mail, maps, or whatever you also believe they have high market share).
You can't say "well, they have a popular search engine, so if they do unrelated thing x, it's abuse".
Monopolies and their abuse are related to specific markets. The abuses take very specific forms, with very specific requirements. The law is generally very careful, because often things like "tying" is actually pro-competitive to a market (or so economists think :P).
" or to push their other services through their monopoly search engine."
Also not a recognized form of antitrust harm :)
There is no ban on "pushing", only "tying" (IE actually requiring, and requiring in a way that competitively harms the market).
Even then, the tying generally has to be between products not naturally related. So your example above fails anyway.
(The things you are thinking about, that MS did, was bundling and tying. Google is doing neither in a market which they may be considered to have monopoly market share)