Page:Note-by-Chair-and-selected-documents-ordered-from-Six4Three.pdf/50

 linking them all together on Facebook. The current state of the world supports that more social apps enables sharing, so the biggest challenge for us is to link them all together.

This makes it somewhat clearer that we want platform to be ubiquitous and to strongly encourage sharing back to Facebook, but it's not yet definitively clear that having full reciprocity and no charge is optimal.

For one thing, it's conceivable that we'd get more net sharing overall and more net sharing into Facebook if we didn't have a reciprocity mandate. This would be true if many developers dropped out over the reciprocity mandate. The reason I don't think they will is that almost no developers will even be giving us the majority of their data since many of their users won't log in with Facebook and many of those who do won't choose to share it back to Facebook. Assuming for a heavily FB-dependent app each of those is 50% participation; then only 25% of the data is shared to Facebook. As long as apps always have a sustainable advantage over Facebook, most will participate. For more sensitive companies like Amazon and Yelp that value their reviews a lot more, way fewer than 50% of their users will connect to Facebook, so this will represent a tiny portion of their reviews and social data. My guess is that they should still rationally want to connect with Facebook at these levels, but if they don't then that probably means they‘re competitive with us and we're better off not letting them integrate with us anyway. This all makes me think full reciprocity is the way to go.

For charging, the question is whether we could charge and still achieve ubiquity. Theoretically, if we could do that, it would be better to get ubiquity and get paid. My sense is there may be some price we could charge that wouldn't interfere with ubiquity, but this price wouldn't be enough to make us real money. Conversely, we could probably make real money if we were willing to sacrifice ubiquity, but that doesn't seem like the right trade here. After looking at all the numbers for a while, I'm coming around to the perspective that the write side of platform is a much bigger opportunity for us and we should focus the vast majority of our monetization effort on that and not this

The last question is whether we should include app friends (ie the user's friends who are also using this app). Ultimately, it seems like this data is what developers want most and if we pulled this out of the package then most of the value proposition falls apart. This is especially true if we require full reciprocity without offering our most valuable data.

So that‘s essentially how I got to thinking we should do full reciprocity with app friends and no charge.

There's some more nuance to this opinion though:

First, in any model, I'm assuming we enforce our policies against competitors much more strongly. The good news about full reciprocity is that for bigger social companies we might otherwise be worried about, if they're enabling their users to push all of their social content back into Facebook then we're probably fine with them. However, for folks like WeChat, we need to enforce a lot sooner.

Second, if we're limiting friends to app friends, we need to make sure we build the appropriate distribution tools that developers want to invite the rest of the user's friends. We keep saying that theoretically this is part of the write side platform and it's a premium feature, and those things may be true, but I think we need to build them and make sure they're ready when we roll this out or else we're just taking away functionality without replacing it with something better. It seems like we need some

CONFIDENTIAL