While I agree that focusing solely on being good to your users is a better plan that focusing solely on being good to your company, surely the best approach to be a successful business involves a bit of both.
Certainly, it's better to lean towards being good for the users, but doing things that will make the company succeed as a business concern is also worth spending energy on.
This is _awfully_ similar to Google's 'Don't be evil', which has seemed to get harder and harder for them as they've grown. Could it be that one a company reaches a certain size the financial pressures outweigh the desire to be 'good', whatever the cost?
In the end, "be good" makes perfect business sense in a free-market economy. In the past, it was easier to get away without being good due to local distribution monopolies and the high barriers to entry in specific industries, reducing overall competition. In the Internet age, it's increasingly the case that there is an open, fluid, highly competitive market, thanks to decreasing distribution costs barriers to entry. Thus you've got to "be good" to compete.