It does if they manage to get in a position where they "own" enough of what you're using so that they can force their choices on you.
Red Hat has been in such a position for a long time now, and their world domination agenda has been steadily hurting non-enterprise Linux users in a higher and higher proportion.
How come? I'm a non-enterprise Linux user and I don't recall ever being hurt by anything RedHat did?
But since most of them folded and adopted Linux, and especially after Oracle upped and forked RHEL6 to make Oracle Linux, the actions from RHHQ has taken on a more controlling nature.
So we worked with IBM, who was also feeling the pressure from Microsoft, and IBM effectively "took over" Red Hat by providing investments, providing executives, and assigning hundreds of engineers to work on Red Hat Linux. That is what propelled Red Hat to become dominant. Since some of the changes to the kernel were just for servers - running things like Oracle, and not useful to the typical Linux user, that became Enterprise Linux.
Except Oracle getting rich on say, Linux, doesn't hurt me if I am running Ubuntu, Debian or Gentoo. In fact, if their patches are any good, due to the GPL, it helps me.
Now, if I develop open source software, I might or might not be able to extract as much of the value generated as if I was making it a proprietary product. On the other hand, the total reach and value of the project might be magnified just because other people (and also for-profit-corporations) can take it and extend it and use it. I might see less of that value myself but:
a) It might not be my primary goal to capture as much value as possible, just to get enough money out of it so that I can continue working on that project.
b) The "size of the pie" that the same project is worth as open-source, specially for developer tools, is much much larger than if I kept it proprietary. So, in some cases, I might be able to capture more absolute value that way, even if I am helping some huge megacorp get filthy rich too (which is what would happen if I got a 'normal' software job, anyways).
Making your software free to me is not quite an ethical imperative in most cases, but it is a personal decision that can make a lot of sense, even if the entity that will profit the most from your software in monetary terms might not be yourself. The flip side is that, all things being equal, a great open-source software is likely to have a higher impact (and bring you more fame), than a great proprietary program. Specially for infrastructure, libraries and the like vs user-facing software.
If Tim Berners-Lee had been paid for the world-wide web what his contribution ended up being worth to the world, he would be the world's first trillionaire. On the other hand, if he had insisted that he get paid for all uses of the web, the web might have never come be to (or might have lost to a much more "corporate" system, under the control of one or a few companies).