I believe that the Canonical Snap server is hardcoded into snapd, so even if someone did implement their own you would need to recompile snapd to even use it.

Of course it is and of course you would need to recompile snapd. These are standard practices in software engineering.

Laying countertops is standard handyman stuff but if your coffeepot doesn't do anything truly unique and requires you to rip it up to switch coffeepots it may be ill designed.

Why would anyone offer an alternate store for snaps?

Ubuntu seems to have made clear that the snap client will not be able to connect to alternative stores. What is the point of building an alternative store.

Further snap is controlled by one company. Canonical has a history of developing groundbreaking new things for the Linux community before unceremoniously killing them off.

* Ubuntu One * Unity Desktop * Ubuntu Touch * Upstart Init system

Do you see a trend here? There is a reason the community is skeptical of something completely controlled by Canonical.

Continuing Ubuntu One was not sustainable: https://ubuntu.com/blog/shutting-down-ubuntu-one-file-servic...

Ubuntu One file syncing, also server part, has been Open Sourced with much effort from Canonical: https://ubuntu.com/blog/ubuntu-one-file-syncing-code-open-so...

Ubuntu Touch https://ubports.com is run by community and has rapid progress, it's running on PinePhone etc.

Canonical would have liked to continue Unity: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/10/why-did-ubuntu-drop-unit...

I would presume Upstart Init system was changed to systemd because other distros started using systemd.

I don't see a trend here.

You have described a trend where those technologies failed to gain sustainable traction and Canonical stopped investing in them. Whether they did this because they are evil or unlucky is not the point.