Facebook said today it is acquiring FriendFeed, the online content-sharing site.

It is a logical fit for the huge social networking site, which has lagged behind microblogging kingpin Twitter in the real-time news, search and status game of perception in Silicon Valley.

Mountain View, Calif.-based FriendFeed has also trailed well behind Twitter, despite its top-notch pedigree of ex-Google (GOOG) staffers, such as Paul Buchheit and Bret Taylor. The other ex-Google co-founders of FriendFeed are Jim Norris and Sanjeev Singh.

Benchmark Capital and angel investors had put about $5 million into the start-up, which had been a darling among the digerati.

Despite that, the start-up only broke one million unique visitors recently, according to several reports, while San Francisco-based Twitter was reported to have upward of 44 million in June.

But FriendFeed will surely get a turbocharge from its Facebook ownership, especially as its technology is fed to its 250 million users.

While Facebook–which is based in Palo Alto, Calif.–has added some of the same functionality that FriendFeed has innovated into its famous News Feed, it will surely get its own boost from adding FriendFeed’s dozen employees, 11 of whom are engineers.

Terms were not disclosed, but the purchase price is likely well under the $500 million Facebook offered Twitter last fall.

In fact, sources estimate to me that the price was about $50 million in cash and stock for the company, which was founded in 2007.

It is also unclear what will happen to the standalone FriendFeed service in the long run, although Taylor said in an uber-cute blog post (see below) that it would remain intact for now.

This move, although prominently unmentioned by Facebook in its full press release below, is most certainly a shot across Twitter’s bow.

Here’s the official word from Facebook, as well as that blog post by FriendFeed’s Taylor about the acquisition:

Facebook Agrees to Acquire Sharing Service FriendFeed

PALO ALTO, CALIF.–August 10, 2009–Facebook today announced that it has agreed to acquire FriendFeed, the innovative service for sharing online. As part of the agreement, all FriendFeed employees will join Facebook and FriendFeed’s four founders will hold senior roles on Facebook’s engineering and product teams.

“Facebook and FriendFeed share a common vision of giving people tools to share and connect with their friends,” said Bret Taylor, a FriendFeed co-founder and, previously, the group product manager who launched Google Maps. “We can’t wait to join the team and bring many of the innovations we’ve developed at FriendFeed to Facebook’s 250 million users around the world.”

“As we spent time with Mark and his leadership team, we were impressed by the open, creative culture they’ve built and their desire to have us contribute to it,” said Paul Buchheit, another FriendFeed co-founder. Buchheit, the Google engineer behind Gmail and the originator of Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto, added, “It was immediately obvious to us how passionate Facebook’s engineers are about creating simple, ground-breaking ways for people to share, and we are extremely excited to join such a like-minded group.”

Taylor and Buchheit founded FriendFeed along with Jim Norris and Sanjeev Singh in October 2007 after all four played key roles at Google for products like Gmail and Google Maps. At FriendFeed, they’ve brought together a world-class team of engineers and designers.

“Since I first tried FriendFeed, I’ve admired their team for creating such a simple and elegant service for people to share information,” said Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and CEO. “As this shows, our culture continues to make Facebook a place where the best engineers come to build things quickly that lots of people will use.”

FriendFeed is based in Mountain View, Calif. and has 12 employees. FriendFeed.com will continue to operate normally for the time being as the teams determine the longer term plans for the product.

Financial terms of the acquisition were not released.”

FriendFeed accepts Facebook friend request

We are happy to announce that Facebook has acquired FriendFeed. As my mom explained to me, when two companies love each other very much, they form a structured investment vehicle…

The FriendFeed team is extremely excited to become a part of the talented Facebook team. We’ve always been great admirers of Facebook, and our companies share a common vision. Now we have the opportunity to bring many of the innovations we’ve developed at FriendFeed to Facebook’s 250 million users around the world and to work alongside Facebook’s passionate engineers to create even more ways for you to easily share with your friends online.

What does this mean for my FriendFeed account?

FriendFeed.com will continue to operate normally for the time being. We’re still figuring out our longer-term plans for the product with the Facebook team. As usual, we will communicate openly about our plans as they develop–keep an eye on the FriendFeed News group for updates.

What about the FriendFeed API?

The FriendFeed API will also continue to operate normally. As above, we will let you know as we settle on our plan to more fully integrate with Facebook.

Check out the official press release for more information.

Goldberg (pictured here) will head the Portland-based private company, which is an online survey creator, including offering analytics of the results.

Sources said he will also become a minority investor in SurveyMonkey, as part of a deal in which Spectrum Equity Investors and other investors, including Bain Capital Ventures, are acquiring a majority interest in the company.

A Federal Trade Commission site on Friday noted that Spectrum had gotten antitrust approval for a transaction, but did not name Goldberg or SurveyMonkey. But it did name SurveyMonkey co-founder Ryan Finley as also getting approval.

Since it was founded in 1999 by Ryan Finley and Chris Finley, who will remain minority investors in the deal, SurveyMonkey has signed up two million users, six million surveys have been created and 200 million responses have been completed.

It charges a variety of subscription fees for its services and is profitable, with an offering that sits between expensive software packages on one side and free, featureless Web surveys on the other.

SurveyMonkey is the largest such survey company online, with competitors that include Zoomerang and Constant Contact.

The move is an unusual one for Goldberg, whom many expected to join or start an online entertainment or music company, given his background.

He joined Yahoo (YHOO) in 2001 and headed its global music operations after it bought a company he co-founded in 1994 called LAUNCH Media. Previous to that, Goldberg was director of marketing strategy and new business development at Capitol Records in Los Angeles.

Goldberg has been on the board of the Generations Network, which owns Ancestry.com and which is a Spectrum investment.

Sources said Goldberg will open an office in Silicon Valley and recruit several dozen new employees to expand the business.

Pure Digital, the maker of the popular Flip digital video cameras, has sold itself to Cisco (CSCO) for $590 million in stock.

The deal, which had been rumored last week by TechCrunch, was announced this morning by Cisco.

The innovative San Francisco-based start-up has made it big from its modest roots as a white-label digital video camera shrink-wrapped for themes parks and drug stores.

But the simplicity of its line of relatively inexpensive cameras, including the recently released Mino HD, has made it a huge consumer success, which is no easy task in the devices arena.

Using its own software, a user can plug the Flip into a USB port of computer to upload digital video easily. Flip models cost anywhere from $100 to $299.

Cisco has been trying to turbocharge its consumer-focused business, especially in home networking, and the move is a clear step in that direction. It is better known for its business making hardware and software that powers the plumbing of the Web.

Although it used stock in buying Pure Digital, Cisco has a $29 billion pile of cash. Recently, I wrote a piece about how a lot of tech companies, with big hordes of money, will soon be buying up a lot of the most promising tech start-ups.

The first commercially-branded Flips were, in fact, introduced at the third D: All Things Digital conference in 2005 by CEO Jonathan Kaplan (pictured here at D3.)

In an email to BoomTown this morning, Kaplan was happy with the outcome, because no matter its success, taking Flip to the next level is not easy:

“We’re thrilled by the partnership. Cisco shares my vision for capturing and sharing simple, accessible, and high-quality video to the mass-market consumer. Now we can deliver that ideal on a global basis.”

Cisco said that “upon the close of the acquisition, the Pure Digital team will become part of Cisco’s Consumer Business Group, which includes Linksys® by Cisco® home networking, audio and media-storage products. Kaplan will become general manager of the combined organization,” reporting to Ned Hooper, SVP of Corporate Development and Consumer Groups.

He and his team will also get a $15 million in retention-based equity incentives.

The sale to Cisco is a big win financially overall. Pure Digital got another $40 million in additional funding in mid-2007, from investors Morgan Stanley Principal Investment, Heights Capital Management and AllianceBernstein, who joined initial investors Sequoia Capital and Benchmark Capital.

It had previously gotten $28 million in 2004 from Sequoia and Benchmark, as well as Crescendo Ventures, Steamboat Ventures and Focus Ventures. It was founded with $200,000 in seed funding in 2001.

And, more to the point, Flip cameras have been used by me for nefarious interviewing of scared Web execs since our site’s launch. In fact, I have been so bizarrely enamored with the Flip that I even did a video of my many old Flips meeting the new high-definition Mino last November.

Here is that Felliniesque effort:

And here’s the full press release from Cisco about the deal:

Cisco Announces Intent to Acquire Pure Digital Technologies, Makers of Flip VideoTM Networking Leader Adds Popular Flip Video Solutions to Consumer Portfolio Photos

SAN JOSE, Calif.–March. 19, 2009–Cisco today announced its intent to acquire privately held Pure Digital Technologies Inc. San Francisco-based Pure Digital, creator of the best-selling Flip VideoTM brand, is a pioneer in developing consumer-friendly video solutions with mass-market appeal.

“The acquisition of Pure Digital is key to Cisco’s strategy to expand our momentum in the media-enabled home and to capture the consumer market transition to visual networking,” said Ned Hooper, senior vice president of Cisco’s Corporate Development and Consumer Groups. “Pure Digital has revolutionized the way people capture and share video with Flip Video. This acquisition will take Cisco’s consumer business to the next level as the company develops new video capabilities and drives the next generation of entertainment and communication experiences.”

Pure Digital’s Flip Video has sold more than 2 million units and quickly demonstrated market appeal in the United States by making video simple, accessible and fun. All Flip Video products come equipped with FlipShare, a best-in-class software that allows users to easily organize and edit videos and then share them instantly on YouTube, MySpace and other popular sharing Web sites.

“Flip Video puts the power to instantly capture, edit and share video into the hands of everyday consumers,” said Jonathan Kaplan, chairman and CEO of Pure Digital. “By combining forces with Cisco, we join a company that shares our passion for video and whose global scale and tremendous technology expertise we expect will enable us to quickly expand and enrich the Flip Video experience.”

Upon the close of the acquisition, the Pure Digital team will become part of Cisco’s Consumer Business Group, which includes Linksys® by Cisco® home networking, audio and media-storage products. Kaplan will become general manager of the combined organization, reporting to Hooper.

The Pure Digital acquisition exemplifies Cisco’s “build, buy and partner” innovation strategy to move quickly into new markets and capture key market transitions. Under the terms of the agreement, Cisco will pay approximately $590 million in stock in exchange for all shares of Pure Digital. In addition, Cisco will provide up to $15 million in retention-based equity incentives for continuing employees. The acquisition is subject to various standard closing conditions and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of Cisco’s fiscal year 2009. The acquisition will be accounted for in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Since BoomTown constantly called the $15 billion valuation of Facebook “insane” when Microsoft (MSFT) forked over $240 million in 2007 and gave Slide’s Max Levchin a very hard time when his widget company got a $550 million valuation a year ago, it’s only fair that I say something equally appropriate about Twitter.

The hot microblogging service just got its very own $250 million valuation, all without a dime of revenue in sight. (I know, Bijan, it’s coming, it’s coming!)

After all, Facebook and Slide got their funding in boom times and here we are hurtling toward a possible Depression: The Sequel, even as Twitter hauls in $35 million more in investments.

But I am torn.

Should it be “WTF?” given that the current economic meltdown really seems to have little impact on Silicon Valley venture capitalists?

I guess they have to put their money somewhere and that’s probably the best choice out there, due to Twitter’s strong growth and, perhaps more importantly, overhyped media mindshare.

Or maybe: “Don’t Stop Believin’!!? I mean, you almost have to admire the appalling suspension of disbelief for Benchmark Capital and IVP to hand over such a sum.

In fact, they are probably right now down at at Il Fornaio in Palo Alto, telling everyone who will listen that Google (GOOG) was founded in the last tech downturn.

Actually, I think the only thing to say is to reference the search giant: “Let’s hope Google has another YouTube moment and decides it must own the start-up pioneering real-time search and status updates no matter the price.”

That’s kind of long, so I will distill it to this Calgon-inspired thought: “Larry and Sergey, take me away!”

Because while I appreciate that Twitter co-founder Biz–I can’t help it, but I laugh every time time I write his name in relation to a company that makes bupkis–Stone underscored that the company was ready to make some money using the new funding, an acquisition by a big, nervous Internet giant is the only way this is going to end well.

In his post, ironically titled “Opportunity Knocks,” Stone noted, “We are now positioned extremely well to support the accelerating growth of our service, further enable the robust ecosystem sprouting up around Twitter, and yes, to begin building revenue-generating products.”

That would be nice, because right now, there’s no Biz like no biz.

And not to sound like a skunk at this Silicon Valley garden party, but Twitter might want to start doing that sooner than later.

I know, I know, I am such a bummer with all this talk of things not just growing to the sky in a world without end.

But as Facebook–valuation now officially $3.7 billion, although probably more if it were to be sold–has found out, the delta between dreamy funding and revenue reality can be quite huge.

And, by that, I am not saying it can’t be done, I am simply saying: Do it.

Until then, here is a lovely Calgon commercial and also a video of that amazing last scene in the finale of “The Sopranos” with the Journey song playing until it is abruptly cut off (I say Tony was shot in the head by the guy in the bathroom, but please weigh in):

This morning, FriendFeed, which is a kind of content delivery version of Twitter, went international, launching in six new languages–German, French, Spanish, Japanese, Russian and simplified Chinese.

Now live, the move is a natural extension for the Mountain View, Calif.-based start-up–which was founded earlier this year by a small gang of ex-Googlers: Bret Taylor, Paul Buchheit, Jim Norris and Sanjeev Singh. The company says that one-third of users already use FriendFeed in languages other than English.

More languages are planned, said the company, which specializes in super-aggregating updates of all kinds for social-networking and news items in an ongoing feed from places like Facebook, YouTube, Digg, Twitter and Flickr.

Given all the dissipated ways people communicate on the Web, FriendFeed lets users collect all these links, some of them in rich media and some just text messages, to share publicly or privately.

I find the service very useful and compelling, so I paid a visit to its HQ last week to chat up Taylor and Buchheit.

We talked about a range of topics, including–my favorite–monetization, or lack thereof, of a lot of terrific Web 2.0 services like FriendFeed and Twitter.

The pair, in a less overt manner than Twitter’s CEO Evan Williams, did acknowledge the focus on growth over revenue, although they did seem intent on figuring out a true business plan sooner than later.

FriendFeed certainly has time to do so–it is a small and inexpensive start-up with a dozen employees, funded with only $4 million from Buchheit and Singh and $1 million from Benchmark Capital.

Here’s the video (excuse my gruff-cold-and-cough voice):

Here’s a video of star VC John Doerr reciting his 10 tips for start-ups to follow in the economic downturn.

Doerr gave out the advice at VentureBeat’s “How to manage your start-up in the downturn” roundtable event, which took place at the Stanford Park Hotel in Palo Alto yesterday morning.

The Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers VC got a lot of attention for his list, which he culled from a survey of 18 of the companies his firm has invested in.

Doerr didn’t need a massive, noisy PowerPoint like Sequoia Capital to make his quick and clear points, which he delivered in four minutes flat.

Doerr was on an investors panel with Ram Shriram, one of Google’s first investors, Ron Conway, Kittu Kolluri of New Enterprise Associates and Matt Cohler of Benchmark Capital.

I moderated the second panel of entrepreneurs, including: Toni Schneider, chief executive of Automattic, the company that makes the WordPress blogging software; Max Levchin of Slide, Jason Calacanis of Mahalo; and Nirav Tolia of Web 1.0’s Epinions. Video of interviews with them and also Shriram to come later today!

But here’s Doerr reciting his 10 tips:

Here’s one certainty in the hubbub that has resulted in the wake of the departure of high-profile exec Ben Ling from Facebook last week: COO Sheryl Sandberg is definitely not responsible for the melting of the polar ice caps.

That’s the joking question–”Was global warming Sandberg’s fault too?”–asked at a staff meeting at the social-networking start-up last Friday afternoon after the news of Ling’s departure on the heels of previous employee exits suddenly morphed into a series of increasingly vituperative posts on the Valleywag tech gossip site centering on what blogger Owen Thomas called Sandberg’s “reign of terror” at Facebook.

Using Photoshopped images–one of Sandberg wielding a rifle and another with the bright-red word, “LIAR,” plastered under her mug–the vaguely sexist and decidedly over-the-top picture painted was of Sandberg (at right) as some unholy cross of Lady Macbeth, the bad side of Hillary Clinton and a really grumpy fascist dictator of a small third-world country.

“She demands total loyalty, and brooks no dissent–even the healthy, boisterous debate that’s common to start-ups,” wrote Thomas dramatically, as if Sandberg might really use that fake rifle on errant minions. “You’re either with Sheryl, or you’re against Sheryl. And if you’re against Sheryl, you’re not long for Facebook.”

Owen, you have now officially scared the bejesus out of BoomTown with that added dash of Rosa Klebb!

(And, of course, this image conveniently leaves out the very pertinent fact that Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is still firmly and much more militantly in charge at Facebook than ever before, but we will get to that later.)

In any case, Valleywag used all of this to postulate that Sandberg’s insane reaction to Ling’s leaving–complete with a sneaky-sounding stock bribe to buy his silence–was evidence of her mad grab for power over all of Facebook.

The talented and strong-willed Ling was portrayed in an odd way too, as some sort of whiny victim of circumstances he was unable to control.

Except–while BoomTown likes a good “Tom and Jerry” cartoon as much as the next person–it’s a deeply inaccurate portrayal of Sandberg, who arrived at Facebook in March; of what happened with regard to Ling; and most of all, of the often-painful growing-up process that has actually been occurring inside of Facebook.

The Ling incident is, in fact, a perfect example of this.

According to multiple sources from all sides, Ling (pictured here) was offered the choice of resigning or being terminated last Monday, and he and Facebook senior management wrangled over how he would leave the company and announce his return to Google (GOOG)–in a big job at its YouTube division, in fact. But the true story of his departure is highly typical of how small, promising Web companies stumble forward.

From mismanaging expectations related to Ling’s job after his arrival from Google last fall (after Facebook widely touted the new recruit), to constant shifts in how the company was organized, to a series of miscommunications and misunderstandings on both sides, the curious case of Benjamin Ling and Sheryl Sandberg is–more than anything–completely human.

Which is to say, it is a bit of a mess.

Here’s what I found out, after spending the weekend talking to as many people with knowledge of the situation as possible, in a very long report:

To begin, as someone who has been consistently tough on the company for its insane valuation, criticized its sometimes ham-handed management and pressed it to show the true path to sustainable monetization, I think I cannot be considered a cheerleader for Facebook or for its shifting management.

Thus, I and many others looked closely at the recent departures of CTO Adam D’Angelo (to take time off) in May and longtime exec Matt Cohler in June (to become a VC at Benchmark Capital) with a gimlet eye.

Looking further, I learned from several sources that the 20-something D’Angelo had issues with the company inevitably becoming larger and more bureaucratic, and there were also questions about his ability to run the much larger and increasingly complicated technical organization.

The sudden exit of Cohler (pictured here), who had become Facebook’s VP of Product Management, had an even a more complex set of variables, sources said, including his longtime interest in being a VC, the highly attractive offer he got from Benchmark and, most of all, his lack of interest in running a much larger organization.

While some say Cohler–who was, in fact, key to bringing Sandberg in–quickly grew disillusioned with her and the direction of Facebook, it seems a bit of a stretch to me to say he left because of her.

As Zuckerberg’s earliest and most trusted of execs, who is also well-liked by all, Cohler had as much–if not more–power as Sandberg over the organization. More likely, I imagine Cohler would have stayed if he thought she was laying waste to the place.

In any case, the arrival of Sandberg–followed quickly by the hiring of former Google PR head Elliot Schrage–heralded massive changes and an eventual path to an IPO for Facebook, a journey that not everyone welcomed, to be sure.

With their much more disciplined and controlling management styles, highly polished Harvard, Washington, D.C. and Google resumes, and obviously sharper edges, Sandberg and Schrage (pictured here) represented a contrast to earlier, less-intense times that not everyone at Facebook has liked.

Many execs–used to the chaos of jostling for attention and power from the close-to-the-vest Zuckerberg, whose attention to various employees seems to always wax and wane–also resisted a No. 2 in charge.

Typical was discontent from Technical Operations VP Jonathan Heiliger, whom many sources pointed to because of his vocal complaints around the company and around Silicon Valley about Sandberg’s more brusque and meddlesome style.

(Heiliger now gets along better with Sandberg, according to many, as do many execs previously wary of the new regime.)

Interestingly, Ling was not in this disgruntled camp, having known Sandberg from Google and hoped her arrival would clarify his growing disappointment with the job he thought he had been hired for.

According to many sources, Ling thought his job as director of platform product marketing, as described to him by Zuckerberg and others who recruited him in the fall of 2007, would be much more expansive than it turned out to be.

And, indeed, the letter from his new boss, Chamath Palihapitiya, heralding his arrival seemed to indicate that Ling would have a lot of responsibility:

Hi Guys,

Please join me in welcoming Ben to Facebook as our Director of Platform Product Marketing, working on my team. He joins us from Google where he was the General Manager of eCommerce, where he ran Google Product Search and Google Checkout and was the founder of Google Checkout. Ben also led the mobile efforts at Google in 2004, where he launched Google SMS. Prior to Google, Ben received his Ph.D. in Computer Science from Stanford University.

Ben is responsible for overseeing Platform aspects of Product Management, Product Marketing, Technical Support, and Partner Solutions.

Zuck, D’Angelo and I are psyched to have Ben on board. *BLING*, as he is known to his friends, sits on the 2nd floor of 156 if you want to come by and introduce yourself.

Chamath”

It was a wide swath of duties, which seemed to indicate that Ling was, in essence, the lead manager of the platform.

This turned out not to be the case, as Facebook runs more as a “functional” organization rather than a “cross-functional” one, which is to say, no one manager is in charge of all the many parts it takes to get a product out the door.

For someone like Ling, sources said, the lack of structure meant chaos and no clear lines of accountability, and he pressed his bosses for more definition of his role.

For their part, sources said, those execs–Palihapitiya (pictured here) and then Cohler–felt Ling was too interested in internal politics, his title and control rather than in taking the lead in a more organic way. They also felt Ling, while a good executor of tasks, lacked the vision to be the overall manager of the platform.

Whether they ever did anything about it, of course, remains unclear, except for the fact that this kind of thing happens a lot all over Silicon Valley.

Let me just stop here then, because one can go round and round with this kind of wrangling over job performance issues and never be able to determine who exactly is to blame.

But it is safe to say Ling was not happy with Facebook and Facebook was not happy with Ling.

When Schrage was put in charge of platform marketing (and not in charge of the platform itself, as many have misconstrued, since he is decidedly nontechnical), the controversial move caused more problems and threw Ling’s status into even more confusion.

Ling and many others did not like the move, of course, but Ling did go to Schrage to share his disappointment and then took his gripes to Sandberg.

That, from what I can tell, is where things went most awry.

In that meeting about 10 days ago, Ling told her that Google had been tring to recruit him and that he was unhappy with the structure of the Facebook organization. According to those who back Ling, he was not making a threat, but seeking advice.

That is not the way those at Facebook see it. “Ben wanted a bigger job, and he was using the prospect of going to Google as a hammer,” said one person. “But he was not doing a good enough job with what he had been running to make such demands.”

Sandberg said she would discuss it with other senior execs, most especially Zuckerberg, and get back to Ling with some answers on Monday.

That was when discontent with Ling bubbled up among his managers, and suddenly a series of smaller slights and problems with Ling added up, and not in his favor.

Curiously, although Facebook sources claim they were dissatisfied with Ling’s work, there seems to have been exactly zero effort to remove him before he revealed the Google offer.

Nonetheless, all now agreed that Ling should not have the larger job, especially if he was also considering a job at rival Google–although, once again, it is not clear that he actually asked for a larger role within Facebook.

What has been lost in this story, though, is that the final decision came from Zuckerberg (pictured here), who was irked by Ling’s demands and his perceived disloyalty.

Sandberg and Schrage came back to Ling on Monday of last week with a startling decision: He could either resign immediately and write an email to his staff announcing it or he would be terminated by them that night and they would announce it.

Ling was, many sources said, flabbergasted that what he thought was an attempt to get some clarity had turned into this. His detractors maintained he was threatening Facebook by dangling the Google offer.

Ling wrote his letter to staff, and news of his departure leaked by the next day, both to me and VentureBeat’s Eric Eldon.

In my post, Ling did not say he resigned under pressure, nor did Facebook say it was about to fire him if he did not resign.

“I have huge respect for Elliot and work well with him,” Ling told me. “Facebook is a tremendous organization, and I would not leave it if it were not for a great opportunity.”

Facebook’s statement said, in part: “Facebook confirms that Ben Ling will be leaving the company in the coming weeks to pursue other interests. We wish him well and appreciate his great contributions to the early success of Facebook Platform.”

No surprise, but things got worse when the discussions quickly turned to the terms of his departure. Ling was only a few months away from his “cliff” for vesting one-quarter of the equity he got for coming to Facebook.

Facebook offered to either accelerate that completely or even make an offer of some of those shares, but only if Ling stayed on the Facebook payroll–taking a two-month vacation–and did not accept an offer from Google or anyone else in that time period.

In addition, deeply sensitive to the perception of a high-profile Google hire going back to the mother ship, Facebook wanted the deal to include a provision barring an immediate announcement that Ling would return to the search giant.

Obviously, given that the original story had been all about talent leaving Google to come to Facebook, the opposite was a much less palatable plot.

Still, this kind of request to refrain from going right to work for a competitor in exchange for shares is not untypical, and companies almost always ask for strict nondisparagement clauses.

But in the hothouse blogging environment of today, of course, to ask for help stopping such news from leaking is like asking to hold back the ocean waves. External optics on Ling’s departure clearly became too much of a focus of Sandberg, Schrage and others.

More to the point, although he did consider delaying acceptance of the job at Google, even though there were other contenders for the position, Ling did not want to agree to Facebook’s messaging about his departure.

Said one Ling supporter: “How could he guarantee that someone was not going to find out and then he would have had to tell a lie about his plans? Especially, given that Facebook is the leakiest place in the Valley?”

Good point and thank goodness! Valleywag wrote about Ling lunching at Google and I wrote of the details of Ling’s new YouTube job on Friday.

Facebook sources, though, said Ling threatened to badmouth the company if they did not pony up. “He insinuated he was going to talk badly about all of us, and we did not want to deal with him acting like that,” said one source.

Sources supportive of Ling said this was not the case and that he was not ever going to impugn Facebook, although Ling was, of course, unhappy.

“Why they didn’t give him some credit for his work and align his interests with theirs by being more generous is a mystery to all of us,” said one Facebook exec, who noted that Ling was prominently featured onstage in the most recent rollout of platform changes at Facebook. “His fall from grace makes you think anyone could go from valued employee to bum pretty quickly.”

Other sources at Facebook disagree, noting Ling was simply a hire who did not pan out as expected and that the fault was in not dealing with the issue sooner.

They also note that the company would never have agreed to put Ling prominently onstage if they had known he was considering a move to Google.

But once again, if Facebook was unhappy with Ling’s work, why put him onstage at all?

It’s hard to get a good answer to that question, which–to me–underscores the disorganization around Ling’s leaving.

“Ben is a really smart guy and Google is probably a better place for him,” said one Facebook exec. “He will probably do well, but he did not do well here.”

Actually, neither Facebook nor Ling did very well in dealing with the disintegration of the relationship.

Ling got a new job at YouTube and a fat signing bonus, but no Facebook shares, some of which he probably deserved for his work on the platform.

And Facebook learned yet another hard lesson about growing up. It is doubtless going to be one of many, many to come.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

It looks like Facebook will definitely be moving from its funky multi- building setup in downtown Palo Alto, Calif., to a centralized campus in Silicon Valley by early next year, said several sources.

The high-profile social networking company–which has been undergoing a major managerial shift of late, as it matures from its start-up status to that of a more established Web player–has been growing quickly–to almost 600 employees today from a couple hundred last year.

It is not clear when the move will take place, but sources said it is likely to start by the beginning of next year, as there are multiple permits, design issues and other logistical issues to resolve.

But, one thing is clear: Facebook will relocate its Palo Alto-based HQ–scattered in about five buildings throughout the suburban town–to a single location.

New HQ possibilities include, first and foremost, the old Hewlett-Packard buildings on Page Mill Road, nearby to the west of Palo Alto.

Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg prefers to remain near Palo Alto, sources said.

But Facebook has also been looking at locations in Mountain View and Sunnyvale, further south, as well as also considering a San Francisco location in the city’s recently redeveloped Mission Bay area.

Until now, Facebook has expanded by filling up rented buildings throughout Palo Alto, the picturesque town right next to Stanford University.

The appeal of being located in Palo Alto–full of shops, restaurants movies and also within walking distance of the main train station into San Francisco–has been a draw for its employees, who have, until recently, gotten some rental subsidies for being located near its offices.

But–as it has grown–Facebook’s presence in town has also become a problem for it and also the town’s citizens, as its swarms of employees have taken up too much space and parking in the increasingly crowded streets.

Growing further in Palo Alto is almost impossible, given the lack of office space and the higher expense, compared to the more typical office-park setups off Highway 101 in Silicon Valley that most Internet companies settle into.

Given Facebook’s plans to grow to 1,000 employees by the end of this year, it’s not a surprise that managers would be thinking of the next home for the company, making a move that is typical for most start-ups.

Sheryl Sandberg, the COO brought in from Google (GOOG) recently, saw such a thing happen to the search giant, which now has a large campus called the Googleplex in Mountain View, Calif.

Over the past six months, there has been a lot of upgrading of Facebook’s looser culture to bring it up to a more professional operation it needs to be if it wants to IPO at some point.

That has meant a lot of internal rejiggering, as well as what BoomTown can only describe as a maturing of its frat-like culture.

There have also been departures of several of its early employees, which also always happens as start-ups mature. Those who have left include: former top exec Owen Van Natta and CTO Adam D’Angelo.

And, just last week, Matt Cohler, its VP of Product Management and longtime adviser to Zuckerberg, announced he will leave Facebook in the fall to become a venture capital partner at Benchmark Capital.

In a move BoomTown is still trying to noodle over, longtime Facebook exec Matt Cohler (pictured here) will be leaving the social networking site to become a general partner at Benchmark Capital.

Cohler, who is currently Facebook’s VP of Product Management, was one of its earliest hires and, as I wrote once, seemed like “the Yoda figure at Facebook to me.”

He will not leave the prominent social-networking company until the fall, even though Cohler is already featured on the venture capital firm’s Web site.

And, after he goes, Cohler will remain as a “special adviser”–is that like a special guest star on a television show a la Heather Locklear?–to Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and senior management.

It is a great get for Benchmark to grab Cohler, of course, who will be its youngest partner ever.

And while the venture firm was the hot shop in the Web 1.0 era, it has not been as prominent a partner in the Web 2.0 space, although Benchmark does have investments in sites like Yelp and Zillow.

A New Yorker, Cohler went to Yale, worked in China, was a management consultant at McKinsey and was also part of LinkedIn’s founding team.

(You know, the LinkedIn that just got $53 million in funding for a $1 billion valuation.)

As I also wrote once: “And don’t be fooled by the baby-faced looks–he apparently worked for a year as a jazz musician in Europe and, therefore, is a hep cat.”

Hep cat or not, he has been one of Facebook’s and Zuckerberg’s closer advisers from its earliest days and his departure will be scrutinized internally and externally.

The big question? Is the move COO Sheryl Sandberg cleaning house of old Facebookers or does the smooth Cohler–who already looks like a VC–simply want to be part of the larger mix in Silicon Valley?

Sources tell me the latter, as Sandberg and Cohler got along well with the recent transition in management at Facebook (some execs, not so much).

In fact, Sandberg tried to get Cohler to stay, said these sources.

In a twist on that, it was Cohler who was one of the key execs in recruiting former top Google (GOOG) exec Sandberg into Facebook.

But it is true that, as is typical as start-ups mature, a lot of longtime execs have left and still more will likely be leaving, as more professional managers arrive.

Former top exec Owen Van Natta left in February, and CTO Adam D’Angelo, who has been friends with Zuckerberg since high school, departed recently.

Cohler said, in an interview this morning with BoomTown, that he was content at Facebook and would not have left had he not been approached by Benchmark’s Peter Fenton recently.

Fenton came there from Accel Partners in 2006, by the way, for those keeping track, and Accel is Facebook’s largest VC investor.

And who says Silicon Valley is like a well-paid game of not-so-musical chairs?

“I would be staying at Facebook happily had this not come along… but it made sense to me,” said Cohler. “It was hard to leave, as I really am excited about what’s going on at Facebook.”

But Cohler did note the shift at Facebook from hot start-up to a more established player.

“Looking back at everything I have done [at Facebook]…I am a generalist and can cover all the bases and when the company was small, that was useful,” he said. “But I really find it interesting working with great entrepreneurs and that is also something I love to do.”

At Benchmark, Cohler said he will focus on Internet start-ups, obviously, and said he is especially interested in the mobile sector.

Benchmark partner Bill Gurley noted that bringing Cohler is in keeping with the venture firm’s focus on staying current with the typically younger entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley.

Gurley himself joined Benchmark at 33 and Fenton at 32.

“It is critical to stay relevant and one of those ways is to keep bringing younger people into our ranks,” said Gurley. “And if you had to say who would be best person in his generation to make a great VC, it would be Matt, who is one of the most networked persons in the Web 2.0.”

Also said Gurley, pointing to Cohler’s involvement in two of the Web’s recent hits, Facebook and LinkedIn, he added: “It takes a lot of judgment to get in front of trends like that.”

Yahoo’s board has been meeting today and, doubtlessly, its directors had a lot to talk about (more on that later!).

Of course, there’s the obvious topic of having to figure out how best to deal with the noisy stylings of billionaire investor Carl Icahn, who is waging a proxy war on Yahoo (YHOO) and calling for new management at the top.

But perhaps what the board should be focused on is the old management at Yahoo, especially in the levels just below the top, who have been operating the company under a lot of stress for far too long.

These would be those not involved in the deal–which has been essentially restricted to the board and also to CEO Jerry Yang, President Sue Decker and CFO Blake Jorgensen.

Yahoo’s operating execs have only been brought in when they are asked to assess the impact of possible options.

So with the clear-cut deal to be acquired by Microsoft (MSFT) seemingly off the table for now and a range of squishier partial ones being considered with either Microsoft or Google (GOOG), along with the continuing distraction of Icahn’s three-ring circus, it has not been easy for its execs to keep focus.

Thus, many continue to consider their options.

The latest speculation, for example, surrounds the fate of Network division EVP Jeff Weiner (pictured here), who has been on paternity leave for four weeks and will return to work next Monday, sources said.

Sources also tell me there will be a major internal announcement tomorrow and many quickly speculated to me that it would concern Weiner’s fate.

Not quite yet. But most at Yahoo I have spoken to do not expect him to stay long, even leaving within the next few weeks, pointing to the continued uncertainty at the company and also, I would imagine, sheer weariness.

Weiner came to Yahoo with former CEO and Chairman Terry Semel in the 2001, the last period Yahoo was in major distress.

And BoomTown has learned that this internal rumor is borne out by several sources within the venture capital community, who have been speaking to Weiner very recently about coming there as an executive in residence.

The obvious candidates for a new home for Weiner are the top firms, such as Accel Partners and Greylock Partners and perhaps even Benchmark Capital or Sequoia Capital, all of which have ties to Yahoo and have several former Yahoos on staff.

A Weiner departure would leave a big hole at Yahoo, and it is not clear which of his top four SVP reports would take his place–Front Door and Network Services’ Tapan Bhat, Brad Garlinghouse, who heads Yahoo’s communications and communities arenas, Media Group head Scott Moore and Yahoo Search’s Vish Makhijani–if at all.

Or even if Yang and Decker will keep the same setup in place.

That might mean another reorg, which has long been a specialty of Yahoo, to reorder its divisions even more leanly or to put more revenue accountability within the units.

Right now, that responsibility lies primarily with Hilary Schneider (pictured here), EVP Global Partner Solutions, who runs all ad sales.

Of all the top execs–even though she has reportedly been offered many jobs outside Yahoo–Schneider is expected to stay, having been brought into Yahoo more recently by Decker.

Translation: She is not exhausted by all the drama at Yahoo quite yet.

Of course, I redubbed it: “Has the Internet Jumped the Shark?” For the love of All Things Fonzie, you bet it has.

The discussion centered around what I think most agree is an inflated market for start-ups, worrisome especially given a looming recession.

Here is my video and one from the panel, in this case a snippet of Benchmark Capital’s Bill Gurley talking about Second Life, in which he is an investor:

Interestingly, none of the panelists–Gurley, Glam CEO Samir Arora, Lise Buyer of Class V Group and Aggregate Knowledge CEO Paul Martino–seemed bothered by that for a variety of reasons (lots of bigger companies interested in acquiring little ones, for example).

I am a little less okay with the rampant frothiness, insane valuations and who-cares mentality, which has seeped into the market and can only result in lack of discipline and too many me-too companies.

While–thankfully–the weak IPO market is protecting the investing public from the insanity this time around (no Pets.com!), it’s still not a good thing for the industry to see too many companies without solid paths to profitability being formed with the hope of some pie-in-the-sky idea that endlesss advertising revenues will support the whole rickety enterprise.

But that’s just me.