No lets not, the term makes perfect sense how its being used. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much of a cut the business takes, not sure where you picked up that impression but its not correct.
They are implying benevolence when there is none. Especially on the part of the hucksters.
share /SHer/ verb 1.have a portion of (something) with another or others. "he shared the pie with her"
synonyms:split, divide, go halves in/with;
edit: seems like a lot of people have the same misconception that sharing implies free of charge, here is a link to the definition for those who are unfamiliar: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/share
verb 1. pay someone for the use of (something, typically property, land, or a car). "they rented a house together in Spain" synonyms: hire, lease, charter
I'd say rent is a better word. Because you're paying. Share definition says nothing about paying. Plus, when you share, the other party keeps what was shared. Otherwise it's borrowing.
Words have meanings for a reason.
Yep and just because you don't like them doesn't mean you can change them. Share is being used correctly and you have a massive misunderstanding thinking that it has something to do with the company profit, but it doesn't. Not interested in continuing discourse with someone who is willfully ignorant, go believe what you want I couldn't care less. Cheers!
I don't think anyone is getting confused here at having to pay for use of the car. If people are getting confused and the meaning is being totally lost, then perhaps it's worth arguing semantics (e.g. in the case of "Autopilot").