Have we reached a consensus that asking the question "how much would you pay to keep using Google" is an accurate method for deciding how valuable Google is to

Have we reached a consensus that asking the question "how much would you pay to keep using Google" is an accurate method for deciding how valuable Google is to society? To me it seems like a flawed and simplistic approach, which will always make Google seem more valuable than it actually is, because it assumes that in the absence of Google, no alternative products and services would have appeared into the world and provided more value than Google ever has. It frames the question as "Google or nothing".