Point is, if Apple wanted to go "evil", if they wanted to go for a knock out blow here, they could. It would probably benefit them in the end. To be honest, I could even see a LOT of other (NON-Ads based) developers loving it. As it would result in the removal of a lot of ads based riff-raff from the store.
So would it good for US? No.
But would it be good for a lot of other very important stake holders not to mention Apple itself? Absolutely.
Part of the reason you can't charge for your app (or at least this is true for many apps) is that you have to compete with ad-supported alternatives which are "free".
I really wonder whether the App Store would be a more or less pleasant experience if there were only two types of apps: totally free and paid (either freemium, one-time upfront or subscription). I'd also love seeing a new category that mimics the podcast model: "sponsored" apps that advertise 1-2 products for a month or two at a time, but don't transmit any user data back except aggregate views. (This is also similar to the Masters golf tournament in the US with its very limited commercial breaks from 1-2 companies each year. It's the only golf I really enjoy watching.)
Apple desperately needs a trial infrastructure so that devs don't have to do the very anti-user move of blackmailing them with ads every 12s. and an "ad free" IAP. That just puts me in a sour mood toward the dev and starts off the whole relationship on the wrong foot (yes, I probably take devs auctioning off my user data more personally than I should given that they don't have much choice in the matter if they want to eat).
Look, I know the game in Silicon Valley is to be bound and gagged by whatever billionaire is willing to throw money at you in their desperate quest to catch a unicorn. Some of us like to do it a different way. And our users are okay with that! They understand the transactional value of ads!
I use it too. But that doesn't make it a good model for all involved.
No offense taken :)