Is research in private industry more result-oriented than research in academia?
Funding priorities


  It seems to me that the scientific community is too influenced by doing what funding organisms conceive as favorable just to get more points from evaluation committees to eventually obtain more funding.


This can certainly be the case if you allow it to.  As John Baez puts it


  The great thing about tenure is that it means your research can be driven by your actual interests instead of the ever-changing winds of fashion. The problem is, by the time many people get tenure, they've become such slaves of fashion that they no longer know what it means to follow their own interests. They've spent the best years of their life trying to keep up with the Joneses instead of developing their own personal style! So, bear in mind that getting tenure is only half the battle: getting tenure while keeping your soul is the really hard part.


Governments fund a vast range of research.  Presumably you are funded by a grant whose proposal was written to fund the research that you want to do, and doing that research is what the funding organism will "conceive as favorable".  

Funding priorities are largely determined by input from academics, who serve on the funding panels and write the national reports that influence them.  For these two reasons, "doing what funding organisms conceive as favorable" is often the same as "doing the research you want to do."

Goals of research


  My impression on private research is that the goals are oriented to get results


This is very true.  Industrial research is not (with rare exceptions) curiosity-driven.  The end goal is to sell more products, create them more cheaply, etc.


  whereas in academic research the only goal is to get the article published (and thus spending eventually more time on writing the article and/or applying for grant calls than on real research).


I would say that in academia you have more freedom to spend time writing up the results of your research.  I think it's true that some academics become so focused on publication that they lose the joy and curiosity that initially led them into research (see the quote from Baez above).  But writing is an important part of academic research, so if you dislike encapsulating what you have found and making it understandable to the rest of the world in this way, then an academic career is probably not for you.

The concern about time spent applying for grants is a very legitimate one, and this is something you will not generally need to do in industry.

Getting more information

I recommend talking to someone who has a Ph.D. in your discipline and has pursued a career in industry.  Your professional society may also have useful information.  For instance, in applied math there is the SIAM careers page with a lot of interesting perspectives.  Let me quote here from someone who worked in academia, industry, and government research (source):


  As an academic, you select the problems you work on, while trying to pick those that will interest your peers. In national labs, the problems you work on must fit somewhere into the needs of one of many ongoing projects; a fit with your own research interests is certainly possible. In industry, there is usually one (or very few) projects, and you will probably spend your time learning about someone else's problems.