But they do:
1. Consumers vote with every dollar they spend (or add they click).
2. Developers vote with both with every dollar they spend on software, and every monetization strategy they select to earn dollars from customers.
There's a ton of industry structures I don't like. (I won't list various companies I don't like, b/c that would distract from my core point that they do have healthy economics from customers who do like their products.) Existing market structures are usually the result of some form of consistent action on the part of market participants.
So what would a better industry structure be, for customers, that would consistently make money for developers?
The amount of developers that either 1) don't care about their users having to deal with ads or spyware or 2) actively want the monetization and grubby data features offered by these companies or 3) are too overinvested and simply can't switch to another engine, likely far exceeds the amount of developers who both could and would reject Unity for this. Especially when considering a lot of the types of products that Unity is used to pump out; the type of passion projects which would be likely to have a developer who would take a moral stand are likely an insignificant minority overall.
I'd like to be proven wrong on this in the future.
There's a ton of industry structures I don't like. (I won't list various companies I don't like, b/c that would distract from my core point that they do have healthy economics from customers who do like their products.) Existing market structures are usually the result of some form of consistent action on the part of market participants.
So what would a better industry structure be, for customers, that would consistently make money for developers?