Yeah, if the startup's sole value is that it looks good on a résumé, that's true. But many startups have added brand value -- if Microsoft wanted to get into micropayments, for example, I think Microsoft TipJoy would have more initial traction than Microsoft Micropayment using the same developer. FB already has a great brand name.
In my mind, brand value equates to user traction. User traction alone isn't enough for valuation (particularly in sober times), particularly when the acquirers have massive user-bases themselves.
Microsoft's historical acquisitions were of that kind (starting with DOS!): technology/development teams, with little or no premium paid.
As an acquirer this is perfectly rational behavior.
Why make a VC rich? That is the logic that is increasingly being applied and the proliferation of start-ups makes that logic very compelling. Let's say FB next needs a real time video service. Do they really need someone else's brand or audience? They would likely scout for a hot development team with good technology, and there are many to choose from.
