I think Google fits more in the "extract as much value from your users" bucket more than the price hiking one.

Uber/Lyft did raise prices, but interestingly (at least to me) is that if the strategy was the smother the competition with low prices, it didn't seem to work.

Unity is interesting too, though I'm not sure it would make a good poster child for this playbook. It raised prices but seems to be suffering for it.

Everyone's in "show your profits" mode, as befitting a mature market with smaller growth potential relative to the last few decades. Some of what we're talking about here is just what happens when a company tries to use investment capital to build a moat but fails (the Uber/Lyft issue you mentioned -- there's no obvious moat to ride-hailing, as with many software and app domains). My theory is that, going forward, we're going to see a much lower ceiling on revenue coupled with lots of competition in the market as VC investments cool off and companies can't spend their way into ephemeral market dominance.

As for Unity, they're certainly dealing with a bunch of underperforming PE and IPO-enabled M&A on the one hand (really should have considered that AppLovin offer, folks), but also just a failure to extract reasonable income from their flagship product on the other; I don't think their problems come from raising prices per se (game devs pay for a lot already, an engine fee is nothing new to them) as much as how they chose to do it and the original pricing model they tried to force on their clients. What they chose to do and the way they handled it wasn't just bad, it was "HBS case study bad."