The idea is sound but it doesn't apply to Amazon, or Google's stores. They're under no obligation to host any app in particular and it should be expected that apps that bite the hand that feeds them would be quickly removed.
I'm sure it's going to be a fair fight between the little guy that has a million other worries in his little life and the corporation whose business model is being threatened and therefore will have a laser like focus across years or even decades.
Direct boycotting of companies forces change very quickly.
It's really simple and doesn't involve bringing in (literal) government guns that'll just end up controlled via regulatory capture anyway.
Be responsible for your own choices.
Also you could have used the same "don't bite the hand that feeds you" argument with VOIP apps on carrier networks. And yet, most countries have passed laws against ISPs banning competing services on their networks.
The ISPs banned them from their platform. Google and Amazon allow these apps on their platform (the Android OS), but are banning them from their app distribution channels.
Taking Google's perspective for a moment, they are not willing the facilitate distribution of apps whose sole purpose reduces their revenue.
These ad-blocker apps can still be distributed and installed outside the app store. I can download from adguard.com and sideload it onto my device.
The interesting question here is if the app stores are considered a functioning monopoly on apps. I lean toward yes.
Although, if the only place you can install software (within reason) is though their store then I think we're in a different situation.
If a company both controls the production of the device and the sole means by which a user can install software on the device, then maybe the company should be legally obligated to host some app, or jump through hoops to get approval to ban an app, or the app can go through an appeal process to argue if the ban is anti-consumer.
I’m not saying this applies to Google or Amazon right now, under the current mechanisms for installing software on devices. I’m sure it’s a complicated issue.
But I think it’s a fair and important question.
It does effectively apply to Apple/iOS, as it doesn't. (With a bunch of caveats.)
Sure, it is not a black and white situation and indies are certainly hurt by this. Also you can install general purpose apps on consoles nowadays; so the line is blurring.
When we are talking about a general purpose device like a phone or a desktop computer though; it really irks me that you need an approval to distribute your app.
We have already seen OS creators forbid an app before sherlocking it, or refusing to validate a satirical app.
Recently both Valve and Telegram have been unable to get their apps approved. I have worked in the music industry and this is sadly really common .. if you work on a music streaming service, it is a huge PITA to get your app approved. It is almost if the people in charge of the OS do not want the competition..
I make this distinction because I think it is way more hurtful when communication or news apps are impacted by this kind of practices and these are pretty vital.
Entertainment apps being hit by this also hurt the consumers by artificially distorting the competition.
Ads Blocker are an edge case. They interfere with other apps, which I feel is ok to forbid. I think that all apps should be obligated to provide a tracking + ads free version but I don't think they should be mandated to make that version free. Especially when ads blockers are often a racket to get your ads networks whitelisted as long as you pay.
Except the obligation created by their customers doing business elsewhere, of course.