That‘s okay, I do it all the time ;). The thing is that we have a different understanding of the analogy itself. An app on google play is not comparable to a token on Ethereum. The app has a function, ie it actually provides value in itself. Most (maybe all) of these token however have zero function beyond writing something onto the ethereum blockchain (for which you do not need the token; the token itself does nothing to that effect). Meaning if you wanted to provide a service for the provenance of fine art, you need a blockchain to write it on (all the stations of a painting during its lifetime including the proof of origin), but what no one needs is a meta token on that blockchain with which you are supposed to pay for that service (if that; most token don‘t even have that function anymore). In a couple of years (probably much, much sooner) it will be way too easy to write this piece of information directly onto a blockchain (like Ethereum) without having to pay in some random token that does not offer any function in itself. To put it differently: the app on google play still works without google play. You can probably download it some other way or get sent the app by someone who has it/a developer and then it will work fine on your phone. The token have no such property. Their product is (mostly at this point) ethereum and without it they cannot function (if they are not building their own blockchain that is).
By the way: is the idea of selling a service that performs these blockchain operations valid? Yes it is. But it does not require a token. The token has no merit, aside from the money grab. People can just pay in legal tender or bitcoin. And once there are many such blockchain service agencies competing for the same value, the ones that make it easiest and best win. I think that will be the ones that offer you to pay in btc, eth, paypal or USD. Not the ones that make you buy an unstable and inherently useless token. Of course I can be wrong ;)