Page:Note-by-Chair-and-selected-documents-ordered-from-Six4Three.pdf/18

 >>>more value share, and that's what the deals are for. But I'd love to >>>get to a state where most of the value we derive is from the open part >>of the platform with clearly articulated rules rather than custom >>>partnerships SWL:: I think we will get a ton of value from the companies using the free' APls/ non-partners... it is just that the value will funnel all directly through our ads/distribution platform... which is not a bad outcome at all it is seeing platform as all about just making the distribution business more efficient and scale better against a model where there is natural pricing / a market. At the same time, I do think that we will also get a lot of value out of the partners/ which I really see as a set of companies/ producing a set of products which we would probably consider building ourselves if we could... >- The problem I have with a rev-share directly, or forcing a developer to use our payments / ad network is that we are not connecting the value and >the cost closely enough. If the thing that is valuable is our payments, >they should pay for our payments if they use our paymentsš if the thing that is valuable to them is the ad network,Š. The rev-share could be an >interesting deal term at the high end, but is just too hard for developers to evaluate / know the value we are driving for them and whether it is >therefore worth it to be on the 'platform'. >>> agree this is a big problem with my proposal. It's much easier fora >>developer to be able to take pieces a la carte and know what they're >>>paying for them. Another issue that's implicit in my proposal is that >>it's not yet clear how a dev would disconnect the revenue share, >>>whereas it's quite clear how you'd disconnect payments or ad network >>>though. That said, I think there is probably a reasonable solution to >>these problems that would still let us get a revenue share. I just >>>think we need to work through this a bit more. The root of my belief is >>>that helping people sign up faster, ramp up faster and remain more >>>engaged is fundamentally valuable. So even though it is more difficult >>>and disconnected to value, rational actors should be able to value it. >>Further, I think having a market of participants will help devs value >>>it. For example, there's no reason why 2% is a reasonable rev share for >>>a credit card processing company to take, but since everyone else >>>accepts it, it now seems more "reasonable" and more folks do it. If we >>start with the head and then open this program up more broadly, I bet >>>we can figure out a set of reasonable revenue shares here for each >>industry/category SWL:::: Yes, the 'how does a company disconnect bit is a really big one to call out in this context. RE: the concept that helping people sing up faster, ramp up faster, and remain more engaged as 'fundamentally CONFIDENTIAL FB-01389022