I appreciate your relativistic stance, but there's a part of me that wonders if, as an example, Instagram provided a billion dollars worth of additional photo sharing value over what already existed on Facebook.
That is, photo sharing does have value to people who want to stay connected and have shared experiences via the internet, but I don't think that Instagram improved that to the tune of a billion dollars.
Counterexample: I was never interested in photo sharing before Instagram. I wasn't a good enough photographer. Now I can make my photos beautiful enough that I want to share them. Is this worth more than a few dollars to me personally? Yes. If I'm at all like a random person, then it's easy to see how Instagram is worth well over a few billion dollars.
Given the context of the article I think the argument can be made that: even _if_ people are willing to pay a couple dollars and in aggregate a billion dollars it doesn't mean that the money is being well spent or that the product actually provides value.
Thought at that point I think we're dipping into issues of free market and a consumer driven bubble.
I personally don't think Instagram is worth a billion dollars.
But the general consensus is that when Zuck saw those numbers and thought of the upcoming IPO, he saw buying Instagram a very good defensive move that would solidify his company's position in the photo sharing marketplace.
Beating the same Nietzche-esqe drum, Zuck valued buying out the competition to be worth a billion.
That is, photo sharing does have value to people who want to stay connected and have shared experiences via the internet, but I don't think that Instagram improved that to the tune of a billion dollars.