The fifth paragraph made me think. What if Google, Yahoo or Microsoft started a social network based on the addresses in their webmail apps? It would instantly be bigger than Facebook.
Obviously size isn't the only thing that matters. That graph in the middle of the article is a pretty sick demonstration that MySpace is dominating this game. And yet, nobody's trying to buy it off of News Corp. Valleywag's claimed that Rupert Murdoch is a lot more excited about Facebook than his own purchase. As is the rest of Silicon Valley, hence the valuations that have nothing to do with the user numbers. Or the yearly revenue...
The thing that is most similar between (post-IPO) Google and Facebook is the immense, almost unbelievably universal goodwill held about the company by the public. Goodwill's not actually worth much money in and of itself, but if the entire world wants Facebook to make money, it eventually will. Let's hope that happens before the users leave.
So if it isn't the users and it isn't the revenue, then Facebook's insane valuations are the product of... hype?
Valuations aside, you're right in saying what really matters is monetization and this is where Google shines. I don't care how much information Facebook has about me, I don't go onto Facebook looking to buy things. I go there to see what's going on in my friends' lives. As the article states, ads on Facebook are an annoyance.
Google's in the right market for targeted ads because when we're looking to buy something, we're more open to advertisements and clicking on them. On Facebook, I'd guess that very few, if any, are looking to buy something (and hence Facebook's abysmal click-through rate).
Also, I can't see users leaving Facebook (eventually the time sunk into building connections just entrenches you into the network), but I hope it figures out something quickly, or these valuations might drop.
