He's not dismissing it or saying that it's not valuable.

And, for the record, AOL had a staggering percentage of eyeballs at their peak.

I think the distinction is that Google is a technological advancement/phenomenon which seems lasting. Facebook is a SOCIAL phenomenon which (to Matt) does not.

I'm inclined to agree with him. I think we'll be talking about Facebook in a few years the way we talk about AOL right now.

I think they have legs. I mean, I think people will still use social networking in 5 years. And they may do it primarily on Facebook. I'm not trying to say that it or Facebook are a fad, or that Facebook isn't very good at it.

I just don't think their value at the time will even be 1/10th of Google's because of the distinction you accurately summed up.

If Google-like valuations is the bar for 'importance', then what's important on the internet other than Google?

"will even be 1/10th"

that will depend if they succeed to monetize their success. You can't be sure so sure any predictions for anything these days.

They almost can't monetize like Google. Google is active. You go there because you're looking for something specific. It's really easy (now) to make money off of the guy who Google's for "ipod".

On Facebook, you're relaxing. You're not in action mode. It's going to be hard for them to come up with ways to monetize passive traffic. The best anyone has done in offline media is show branding ads. This may work, and may even make them profitable, but it won't make them Google.

a lot of users return daily to check their messages and wall posts, sorta like email

pokemon is popular too. that doesn't make it important in the sense matt means.

I have a fairly young sister. Just a few years ago, she was absolutely obsessed with pokemon. The only way we could get her to do math was with pokemon flashcards. To her and her friends, pokemon was their life.

Note: she's since outgrown it and is now obsessed with anime and gaiaonline (i'd never heard of the thing until recently -- apparently VERY popular).

But it's not just popular. Almost any undergraduate in the US will tell you that facebook is already an essential social resource. That isn't trivial nor is it easy to dismiss.

how is "anyone will tell you it's awesome" different than "popular"? if they know something that makes it fundamentally important you could relate what that thing is, rather than just implying there is one.