It's rarely about the company and much more about those affected by a potential issue. This issue's a little different as it's the potential for a vulnerability more than an actual vulnerability.
A typical case for responsible disclosure is something like a bug in Apache or Nginx that's serious and if a security issue is found that they're given time to address it. So when they make an announcement its:
1. Here is the issue
and
2. Here is the fix
Instead of just spreading and publicizing a vulnerability.
I'm mostly with you when there's potential damage to their customers, especially when those customers are individuals (like a database of social profiles being compromised), which was not the case here. However I think saying it's "rarely" about the company is a bit naive.
There's been some really high profile breaches where the extent of the impact to the customer has taken an unacceptably long time to be made public... which results in increased fallout damage.
A company's natural inclination is going to be to minimize losses (generalizing of course), and that often means dragging their feet, or dealing with it privately and never notifying their customers.
We should recognize these incentives and be a bit more aggressive about holding their feet to the fire, instead of criticizing the researcher who discovers the security flaw. Unless of course his / her behaviour is blatantly malicious.
It anecdotally feels a bit lopsided in favour of the corporations at the moment. Especially when someone like in this post, who clearly didn't endanger any customers, gets criticized...
A typical case for responsible disclosure is something like a bug in Apache or Nginx that's serious and if a security issue is found that they're given time to address it. So when they make an announcement its:
1. Here is the issue
and
2. Here is the fix
Instead of just spreading and publicizing a vulnerability.