It's asserting that they only exist to make money. Or that that is in any way natural.

For a company to focus entirely on making money when they don't have enough money to operate is, let's say, understandable. But since companies are run by humans, and humans are quite adept at balancing different goals at the same time, it's not at all beyond reason to expect a company that is making money hand over fist to also focus on more than just that. It's not at all bad to judge them if they choose not to do that, nor to consider them worse than other companies that both make money hand over fist and choose to focus on more than just making more money.

It is in no way inconsistent to work at a for-profit company and complain that another company only exists to make money. Even if you are the chief executive of a for-profit company that both makes money and has additional goals beyond that, you aren't being inconsistent. But if you aren't the chief executive? If you are an employee whose day-to-day job actually isn't directly to make money, even if it is, somewhere above you, being guided by that goal? That doesn't even come close to inconsistent, IMO.

Most businesses are making money. That's not the same as being all about making money. Confusing the two is a really good way to discount the companies who manage perfectly well to make money without losing their souls to that goal[1].

[1] - I'm not really saying Oracle is one of these companies; I've never worked for them or interacted with them (though I've heard plenty of tales). I'm taking issue with the broader statement, because I think it's a fundamentally problematic lens to view the world through.