Google+ must be one of the most misunderstood things Google's ever done.
It's not supposed to be a social network like Facebook. The thing you see when you visit G+ - people microblogging and sharing pics etc - is just a fraction of the whole point of G+.
G+ is Google's social layer. In data terms, it turns people into "first-class citizens" across Google's estate, instead of every project just shoehorning in their own "user" structure. That's why you see G+ in Play reviews, YouTube comments, integrated into email, and so on.
Your explanation hasn't helped me; I still don't understand the point of G+. Why can't my "YouTube comments" persona be different from my email persona? (Actually, it is: YouTube has asked me several times to retire my old YT username in favor of my @gmail, but it hasn't forced the issue yet.)
> Because one day, you're going to type into Google's Search engine "what's for dinner?" And it is going to tell you.
The idea is really more that you'll go to look at Google Now when you wonder what's for dinner, and there'll be a card telling you that, and you won't even need to ask.
Though the search bit might be an intermediate step on the way there.
That may be Google's internal philosophy, but their external face on it is a service that looks just like Facebook, at the website plus.google.com, with a title of Google+. They couldn't be trying any harder to make it misunderstood.
The problem is that Google built it to function like Facebook, and once it was released into the wild it was used more like a hybrid of Twitter and forums. Maybe they dogfooded it wrong.
I'm increasingly feeling like the problem with Google+ is that it didn't start with a minimum idea. They went straight for the concept of 'Facebook' and didn't give users enough incentive to make the switch.
Maybe they could have made a "Facebook Export" importer to populate streams with existing posts, friends, and photos. Maybe they could have made it more social and personal.
Or maybe Facebook's momentum prevented people from actually making the switch. Enough people are satisfied by Facebook that they wouldn't abandon it for a couple of friends.
Google just didn't play the cards right, and I feel like Google+ has gotten too complicated for anyone to just jump in and figure it out.
I've heard some of their executives explain it as a social layer for Google, but you're right that the messaging is predominantly about the actual Plus website/apps.
It's not supposed to be a social network like Facebook. The thing you see when you visit G+ - people microblogging and sharing pics etc - is just a fraction of the whole point of G+.
G+ is Google's social layer. In data terms, it turns people into "first-class citizens" across Google's estate, instead of every project just shoehorning in their own "user" structure. That's why you see G+ in Play reviews, YouTube comments, integrated into email, and so on.