[karmakaze]

The problem is with "rent seeking" where the amount taken is not related to service provided but rather ownership of the platform. If Google only collected for the Play Service usage that would be one thing, but they can also take a cut of ongoing subscriptions. You could also argue that updates are also provided as a service, but the amounts collected aren't in line with the service that's provided.

One way to ensure equity of service/fee is to have competition. There is no reasonable Play Store competitor for Android.

[nickff]

I understand why you are using the words "rent seeking", but that's a defined term with a meaning which differs from what you're trying to describe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

>"Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth.[1] Rent-seeking activities have negative effects on the rest of society. They result in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality,[2][3] risk of growing political bribery, and potential national decline. "

[lamontcg]

But Google actually is rent seeking by the economic description. The poster is just accusing google of a 'lesser charge' by misunderstanding the concept, they should fix their accusation of what Google is doing not change the term.

[karmakaze]

Yes right, I was primarily referring to the economic part of the term.

There is also ongoing effort of platform owners to maintain their position which does fulfill the other part of the definition.

[nickff]

Charging for access to your products, or taking a cut for sales which take place in your 'virtual store' does not involve any social or political manipulation.