That's a bit biased. I could argue the other extreme by highlighting the quest for truth aspect in academia, the freedom from market influence and safety to pursue wherever the interesting research takes you etc.
Contrast that with working at an adtech giant to increase measurable engagement by applying some amazing $&@! that make users addicted and miserable, your workers burned out and the upper classes even richer. Or work on some prototype that never gets in the hands of users, either because it's just a PR stunt pet project for a higher-up or it gets killed off for internal company politics reasons.
You can pick your narrative by picking which academic and industry position to focus on. You can do awesome stuff at both and be miserable at both.
The top of the top usually do both at the same time. They spend part time at a top university, but also advise top companies with top research groups.
Contrast that with working at an adtech giant to increase measurable engagement by applying some amazing $&@! that make users addicted and miserable, your workers burned out and the upper classes even richer. Or work on some prototype that never gets in the hands of users, either because it's just a PR stunt pet project for a higher-up or it gets killed off for internal company politics reasons.
You can pick your narrative by picking which academic and industry position to focus on. You can do awesome stuff at both and be miserable at both.
The top of the top usually do both at the same time. They spend part time at a top university, but also advise top companies with top research groups.