“Facebook is a technology company … a technology company is a company that creates technology”.

I actually like Zuckerberg more and more for sticking to his own guns… but I am not sure how much of what he says is him and how much is his advisors and posse.

Anyway, I would not know the answer to that.  What I do know, is this.

- on one side, you have technology, software and subscription licenses…
- and on the other, you have media, publishing and advertising.

Both can be tremendously successful and valuable.  In the 1970s, 80s and 90s technology outperformed media mainly due to the PC and its requirements and growth.

But in the 2000s, free technology on the Internet has outperformed traditional technology because of a new medium, the Web, and the rapid rush of new audiences and migration of advertisers. 

Google managed to leverage its technology to build a business around what’s on the other side of the fence because of its timing.

No other company has or will do that, probably ever again.  Why?  Google envy.  Googlegrew so profitable so fast that no one will ever let such a thing happen.

Facebook IS worth a lot, but it will never be the next Google because media companies can generate $15B in advertising revenue, not technology companies (let alone social networking companies).

In fact, is Google a technology company alone?  It could be argued that it is the single example of a perfectly balanced technology-media company.