Well, that’s the PR message associated with the new wave of source-available licenses (source-available licensing is not, itself, new; its long been an established form of proprietary licensing.) But it doesn’t hold up: you can’t harm competing services providers without harming end users. There is a reason why the very different ideologies of the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Community nevertheless have stably settled on definitions which are virtually identical in practical applications (and even though those communities have very different preferences for licenses within the scope meeting their similar definitions.) It is because the space is not a continuum, and there is a minimum needed in each of a number of axes of liberty for the whole structure not to collapse into something which either community prefers free/open licensing. Particularly, without robust freedom that protects what other people can do with it (including there ability to sell you services built around the software that the original maker might also want to sell), you are not insulated against future actions of the copyright owner restricting the software or its or others services around it.
And this isn’t opaque to the people issuing these licenses; the overt motive is to enhance monetization by preventing licensees from competing with them to sell services: it is to create a moat enabling monopolization and monopoly rents. That’s the explicit idea: to create lock-in that free/open licenses would not support.
The benefit that the licensors seek directly depends on the harms that extend beyond competitors to end users.