People bought devices that did not show the ads. Now Google has forced those ads onto those devices. So, hindsight being 20/20, this is yet another abuse.
"They change it after selling it to you for the worse, don't buy their products."
When that becomes the reputation the problem will solve itself when they stop selling them from bad reputation.
In this "fully my property, not a service I'm using" framework, would an update that patches a security vulnerability be "altruism"? Would refusal on Google's part to patch vulnerabilities be a completely acceptable refusal to futz with someone's property?
This is a serious question; my perspective is that "I thought I was buying unchanging property" is disingenuous unless you're similarly surprised by app updates and maintenance (let alone feature development). The expectation of these updates makes it pretty clear to me that this resembles a service more than a static product that Google has ability to "vandalize" (or responsibility to maintain).
If they can't do that, then they need to stay out of the space.