"Why not use your knowledge of the future to play the stock markets? We could make trillions." "Why make a trillion when we could make... billions?"
Not to say you don't have a point, but I think the point you are making is less to be reflected in the revenue number but in the probability of the company surviving, which he put's at 100% in his assumptions... that does sound rich to me!
Communications and social platform, while they can have some pretty strong network effects, are not as important, even if they keep improving them,. A new generation of users might switch from Facebook to Snapchat, and it's irrelevant if Facebook adds the same kind of features. A new generation of users won't switch from Google to Bing, or something else, unless, as I said, Google stops providing the best results.
Whatsapp is used by more than 300 million users right now, more than Twitter. Do you think Whatsapp will still be as relevant 10 years down the road? The chances are pretty small, I think.
People just need good enough search, not the best.
In my mind, it is diversification that allows a tech company to stay afloat when new entrants can have such a rapid impact on the market.
It is in no way conceivable to me that the 'trendy' means to communicate will still be in 140 character morsels 10 years from now.
No, you don't get it. Exponential growth is real. Ponzi schemes are the future.
Of course a valuation is for the people who are optimistic about the future of the company, because that is who you are going to sell the stock to.
A twenty fold increase in revenue is not at all unheard of, and as far as I know a standard estimate in the sector.