That doesn't really justify a slice of subscription revenue though.
Wholeheartedly disagree. I download software on Linux and Mac frequently without ever having it reviewed.
I buy physical products that have sensors. These don't get scrutinized.
If we truly need a "health inspector", then it should be a third party. Not the mafia that makes the device and frequently launches competing apps and features.
And it seems totally uneven that websites can access and deal in the same data, yet they escape review.
It's an invented charade that is brutally unfair.
Android users don't care that they're being tracked, as long as it doesn't break their app or drain their battery too fast.
Google cares that apps track users, because (a) it allows apps to end run around their own ad offering & (b) it provides Apple with a talking point to bludgeon them about the head with.
Review is a PR measure masquerading as a user benefit, in order to technically enforce a centralized toll gate.
But yes, this requires knowledge of what you are doing.
So most people rightfully choose the playstore - and maintaining (and curating) the playstore requires work. So I also think it is fair, if google gets a cut. But 30% and also 15% is just cutthroat price range.