5 ms·

> The move will significantly reduce the risk of building on the Facebook platform. What's to stop them from reversing the policy change? Once bitten, twice sh

> The move will significantly reduce the risk of building on the Facebook platform. What's to stop them from reversing the policy change? Once bitten, twice shy.

cma 8y ago
They put an enforceable promise in there that they wouldn't do that. Wait no, they could have but didn't.
- Spivak 8y ago
  Why would a company ever impose binding restrictions on itself?
  - function_seven 8y ago
    When they’ve already burned their reputation and need to convince portential partners that they won’t do it again. I can’t think of any real world examples, though. So this is all hypothetical.
  - kennxfl 8y ago
    It's a PR move. Probably proposed by one of many third party agencies that Sandberg 'wasn't aware of but takes full responsibility for'.
    - aylmao 8y ago
      I think it's more likely this is to avoid problems with the slew of dating apps that depend on Facebook now that they're starting to roll out their dating feature.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    To convince customers that they're not just trying to trick them?
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Hypothetically, or in the specific case of facebook? Companies imposing binding restrictions on themselves is vital to loads of types of business. An insurance company binds themselves to pay out if you make a valid claim, for example.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    To ward off government regulation.
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    Well basically every company releasing code under an open source or free software license does so it is quite common. I guess the answer to the "why?" is the same as always: they believe doing so is more valuable than not doing so.
ineedasername 8y ago
Or "eating your lunch". You make something that overlaps with FB functionality, but people use it instead of the FB version because it works better/has additional features. You make some $$ and all is well. Then FB takes a look and says "Hmm, we should add those features." Now no one needs to use your version anymore.

> The move will significantly reduce the risk of building on the Facebook platform. What's to stop them from reversing the policy change? Once bitten, twice shy.

cma 8y ago

They put an enforceable promise in there that they wouldn't do that. Wait no, they could have but didn't.

Spivak 8y ago
Why would a company ever impose binding restrictions on itself?
- function_seven 8y ago
  When they’ve already burned their reputation and need to convince portential partners that they won’t do it again. I can’t think of any real world examples, though. So this is all hypothetical.
- kennxfl 8y ago
  It's a PR move. Probably proposed by one of many third party agencies that Sandberg 'wasn't aware of but takes full responsibility for'.
  - aylmao 8y ago
    I think it's more likely this is to avoid problems with the slew of dating apps that depend on Facebook now that they're starting to roll out their dating feature.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  To convince customers that they're not just trying to trick them?
- michaelt 8y ago
  Hypothetically, or in the specific case of facebook? Companies imposing binding restrictions on themselves is vital to loads of types of business. An insurance company binds themselves to pay out if you make a valid claim, for example.
- josefresco 8y ago
  To ward off government regulation.
- CogitoCogito 8y ago
  Well basically every company releasing code under an open source or free software license does so it is quite common. I guess the answer to the "why?" is the same as always: they believe doing so is more valuable than not doing so.

ineedasername 8y ago

Or "eating your lunch". You make something that overlaps with FB functionality, but people use it instead of the FB version because it works better/has additional features. You make some $$ and all is well. Then FB takes a look and says "Hmm, we should add those features." Now no one needs to use your version anymore.