I don't have a problem with a company refusing to be involved with, or in support of something. If Google does not want ad blockers in their store, that is their prerogative.
What I do have a problem with is that this same store is the duly authorized and official channel for which to obtain and install software for this platform. And while Android may be "Google's" - it was based on Linux. So the notion of attempting (however loosely) to restrict what gets loaded under it strikes me as playing a little fast and loose with the GPL. And although Android is officially been released by Google under the Apache License, that doesn't change the fact that GPL3 also
Being able to do a side install -while fine as a workaround - is still a workaround.
And it's a dangerous thing to tolerate since it opens up the possibility for a huge can of legal worms some time down the road.
I'm all for Google's decision. It makes sense since ad blocking runs counter to Google's business model.
What I object to is being single-sourced on an "authorized" way to purchase and install software. Maybe Android doesn't put you through the hoops Apple does making you jailbreak their devices - but it's still hardly acceptable IMO to put any
impediment (other than an DIAYOYO warning or two) in the way of what a device owner wants to do with their own device.
The problem is not Google blocking the blockers. The real
problem is that Google gets to block anything at all.
And yes, I "know" we don't actually
"own" our smartphones and tablets, we merely "license" them...
Something to which I (and anybody else with enough of a functioning brain to still support respiratory functions) says: Codswallop