This is a common/popular (and justifiable) way to read the situation.
However, it may rest on a few assumptions that I’m not sure hold.
1. Personally, i don’t think it is a financially motivated decision, rather a design choice.
My read is slightly different.
Unlike, other vendors
that are building tightly-coupled but more vertically-integrated, product-first platforms,
over the years, Zerodha (and Rainmatter) are focussed on
building an eco-system/framework, and not a stand-alone product.
2. AFAIK, being the largest broker is neither the stated goal (nor a revealed goal) of Zerodha.
To be clear, while one can continue to highlight features one would prefer to see/use.
However, a plan with a higher likelihood of success will take into account that Kite may not be the first place where such features appear in the world. And if one’s trading strategy relies on relatively early access, then one is better off switching to a different broker.
On a somewhat related note, the conventional wisdom says that such additional “features” are unlikely, by themselves, to create a trading edge i.e. are not going to somehow push one into profitability.
There is also the second-order effect of everyone getting access to the same tools. The tool itself stops being an edge. Retail traders may all pay for more subscriptions, learn more interfaces, and execute more complex workflows, only to end up in roughly the same relative position as before.
The market adjusts, but the trader’s costs and complexity go up. All this effectively increases the “cost of doing business” (and thus the threshold for profitability) for retail traders, in terms of time and money.
If history is any indication, it seems unlikely that folks will blame the “enabler” even after learning it the hard way. And will look for other scapegoats to blame.
That said, the markets volumes should improve
and passive strategies can benefit from the “better” price-discovery. 
Couple of discussions (of several) on this topic
that also discuss a few other related aspects -