Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that is not the entire point of DoH. That’s like saying the entire point of TLS is to prevent users from looking at the traffic being sent to a website. DNS without DoH, DoT, or DoQ, is wide open to anyone snooping traffic in the raw, that’s not necessarily information you want to share with the world.
The entire point of DoH is to take away control of DNS from the OS vendor to the browser. There were other encrypted standards(dnscrypt for example) that didn't require you to do that, but the one that bypasses the OS was forced by adtech monopolist in charge.
> but the one that bypasses the OS was forced by adtech monopolist in charge.
Assuming by “adtech monopolist in charge” you mean Google, I don't think taking control from OS would benefit them given they effectively have control of more than two thirds of the mobile market share globally¹ so they are shooting themselves in the foot as much as anyone else – so I assume there are practical reasons², or purely technical ones, for DoH being their preferred choice (assuming that are pushing a preference).
And anyway, there is nothing that says applications have to implement DoH instead of letting the OS do that, Chrom{e|ium} and FF have gone that way in part because base OS support wasn't (isn't?) commonly available/enabled.
----
[1] A less than two thirds if you only count the US, as some published figures do, because Apple does rather better there compared to global averages.
[2] isn't dnscrypt's standard still officially a work-in-progress?