You see Google as a company that is just serving ads.
I see Google as a company collecting and organizing information.
Should companies not do things beyond what they are doing right now even if it means improving people's lives?
If you'd like to read further, The Innovator's Dilemma and related material has a lot of examples of companies where inertia around existing lines of revenue was strong enough to kill them.
But it's deeper than that. It's only obvious because those companies had their markets shift under them. I think the same sort of inertia is endemic, but it only becomes visible when circumstances change. E.g., look at the number of newspaper companies that existed before 1994, and look at how many are thriving today.
Google's not immune to this. Whatever wonders they come up with, the company is stuffed with people who are very good at selling their users (that is, us) to their customers (the advertisers). It's entirely reasonable to fear what those people will do with my medical data.
It's not Google's fault, but more the U.S. Government for being incapable to reign in control of certain organizations.
Personally I don't care - from a data perspective I'm know I'm not a special snowflake, but for others I can understand their stress.
You can see it however you want. The truth can be found by asking a simple question: how does Google make money? By serving ads. They may collect and organize information in the process, but ultimately they are an advertising company.
I'm on the fence about this detector. On the one hand, yes, there are significant benefits. On the other hand, the costs are also monumental. One has to cast their fanboy/hater hat aside and weigh these pros and cons carefully and objectively before making a decision.
...and then making it hard to access on Windows Phone.