Basically Google business model is based on the entrepreneurial environment of Palo Alto (silicon valley) i.e. make something attractive - there will be players willing to take a risk.
Such is their treatment of the Google Play market as well - i.e. the developers are all types - corrupt and non-corrupt - they don’t want to promise anything ahead of time, but leave it up to the hype of huge profits to drive developer interest in the market (and well, mobile IS a huge and growing market).
On top of that - because they don’t want to spend the resources to police the market (and somewhat also mixed it up with open source etc. etc.) - they feel they want to keep it hands-off (AND cut down on human involvement - which is where the high margins will be).
But this all works as long as there is no penalty for randomly kicking off developers, taking their money because some algorithm decided to kick them off.
Google is relying on a system where developers will “learn” to adjust - or the learning will be both ways i.e. developers as well as their banning algorithms etc.
However, this completely ignores the developer effort required to make even a small app - this is because while it can be low-grade - in order to NOT be badmouthed by users, the developer has to put in some effort to avoid some of the issues (on top of this developer is burdened with device fragmentation which google COULD tackle by creating databases of issues - but they haven’t).
So in effect Google wants their play store to be populated with apps - to provide an ecosystem - but they are unwilling to support it.
If it was hands-off that would be one thing - but that is not so either - as Google wants to impose restrictions on payment processing solutions etc. - and makes a faux-effort to suggest they are looking out for the “user experience”.
Would that not be served by resolving some of the issues related to the developers ?
So to summarize, Google assumes developers have more to gain by participating in market than not - and so they will bend over backwards to do so (notice developers here talk about the possibility of leaving money at the table because they have been banned !). In which other business model would this happen (sure some maybe were violating rules and so they don’t bother pursuing the issue perhaps).
However, the “gratitude” that developers are expected to demonstrate is not sufficient reason for Google to violate normal business practice when dealing with developers.
What is happening is that basically Google HAS become a monopoly - they have helped create the market for sure - but now that the market has appeared, Google is one of very few players in control of the market (and in a position to set market rules and be in a position of arbitrator as well over which developer gets to participate in this market or not). And developers are expected to smile through the whole thing.
This itself is an early indicator that there is a monopolistic environment developing - where Google can act this way, and developers are in such a position that they even consider shutting up about the issue (not having any way to contact admob/Google of course doesn’t help either).
There may even be some business practice requirement - that if a deal is being made between Google and developer (terms of service or whatever) - there HAS to be a place where the other party should be reachable - and what type of “reachable” is reasonable. That is, is one supposed to visit Google headquarters to demand “satisfaction” or can there be/should there be more convenient ways ?
If the deal between Google and developer is one way - where Google can revoke at any time - and developer can leave the market any time - there needs to be some way to deal with the money that in the balance.
What would happen if a court rules that Google is incapable of policing the distribution of ad revenue from admob to developers ? Because they are not willing to devote the manpower to that issue (sure that is to reduce costs and understandable - but should the cost of that be the abject acceptance of any and all misdemeanors by the Google algorithms as “fate” by developers ?).
EDIT: What if a court was to rule that Google is not a reliable holder of the developer’s money - and that it should be kept in escrow lest the developer be unable to get response from Google ?
Why does this business relationship involve “randomness” - the brunt of which falls on the developer ? After all the agreement has not included the possibility of “random” decisions on the part of Google (when their algorithms fail) ?