From that comparison, it is quite apparent that while Facebook may have a stronghold on your hours per day, and have richer personal data on the individual, Google has access to a far more diverse dataset from its users.

For example, there have been talk about how search has shown promise in early cancer diagnosis [0].

So as you say, while Google are currently only monetizing their ad platform at the moment, they are far better positioned than Facebook to quickly find new revenue streams, should they need to.

Additionally, if you should believe that AI is going to be a huge area for monetization in the near future, then Google are very much well positioned to be a leader there - it is no coincidence that a "search" company is able to make self-driving cars or Alpha Go...

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/technology/online-searches...

They also neglect intent. When I search for something, I want it, at that moment. When I see an ad on my facebook page, it's trying to guess what I want at that moment, but I'm actually doing something else and the ad is simply trying to distract me and convince me I need something at that moment.

Yep. Facebook has just as many visitors as Google and makes much less.

Sure they know what age I am, that I'm college educated, live in NY, like anime and startups. But would they know I'm suffering from hemorrhoids and need help? That I'm considering an abortion and need a clinic recommendation? I sure as heck ain't broadcasting that in my timeline.

Shit. Hope you get that stuff sorted out, probably deal with the hemorrhoids first.

(aside since I assume that was an example! :) [Edit: and in case you aren't, hope you do get that sorted out]

Google has better potential for growth, but it still needs to prove it can heavily monetize anything outside of search. That is, find a new business that is competitive with their search revenue, until it's too late.

Facebook's first success was monetizing mobile (which Google should have been able to do better than it currently does). Its potential to find new sources of revenue is good but not as great as Google's.

Only time will tell if either or both will succeed next. Since potential isn't as good as realized potential of course.

People spend a ton of time on Facebook.

Of those products you name, GMail, Youtube, Chrome, Maps and Docs are near-commodity products. These are just basic services for which open-source versions exist, and every engineering team of about 50 people could easily recreate them given today's state of technology. This also holds for Facebook.

The real struggle lies not in the technology, but in the network-effect and branding.

What do you think the thousands of engineers that work on these products are doing? You realise that there's a lot more to these products than the web interface?

They work on making it scale. But that is an activity that pays for itself.

Indeed. I use gmail, gmaps, and gdocs because they're good tools. If not for my still-free Google Apps account, I'd pay for just gmail and docs even if there are free alternatives.

>What do you think the thousands of engineers that work on these products are doing?

Not much. Usually worsening them...