You're missing the point. They aren't choosing between the AGPL and Oracle's EULA. They're choosing between the AGPL and other open source software licenses.
First, every time some AGPL code has to change, a business has to review the amount of work that will go to it (patch or rewrite and replace), review the patch including legal review, etc.
Secondy, this requirement resticts my freedom. If the same code is licensed under a permissive license, I wouldn't have to do anything. Once it's approved for internal use, the overhead of dealing with OSS is almost gone.
Regardless of Google's falsehoods, it's undeniable that a permissive license doesn't restrict my freedom. And that's it - I don't need more anti-AGPL propaganda to avoid its use. If I can use the MIT or Apache or BSD licensed code, I will. Even if it's slightly worse, I'll pick it over AGPL-licensed code because in the mid and long term it won't cost me as much.
> Google wants to be able to incorporate FOSS software into their products and sell it to users without the obligation to release their derivative works.
Who doesn't? Why should anyone bother furthering your AGPL agenda over own interests and the freedom offered by permissive open source licenses?
I can't believe this crap topic comes up every so often.