To me, a network dominated by company-owned farms is worse than one dominated by farms owned by regular people, other people might disagree. The way I see it, company owned farms is worse because the companies care purely about profit, nothing else, and they don't care about growing the ecosystem much. Profit is still the case for people-owned farms but lots of people mining asic resistant coins also care about learning about growing the ecosystem. Also, people running a farm in their house will get nowhere close to the effect that a massive mining datacentre, due to space, power or noise constraints. Other people might see it differently though.
I don't know the details or motives of every mining operation. But yes you're right, companies obviously need to make a profit. I'm thinking more about BTC, where it is so dominated by ASICs that someone can't just rock up with a phone or CPU and help secure the network. It has strayed from its roots a bit in this sense, that's why Bitcoin forks like Vertcoin or Litecoin exist. Monero and lots of other coins also have focused on being mineable in someone's home. A private owned farm can heat the house (in my case anyway), off-setting some of the energy cost against the heating cost. Company owned farms generally spend funds to dump the excess heat into the atmosphere. But this is probably too specific a case and not general enough.