I'm not sure I see why "I think Google has suspect motives" leads to the conclusion "Google+ Has Already Failed." The Internet has already shown that people trust those with suspect motives far too much.
Innovation isn't the only thing that leads to success, not by a long shot. Polish, ease of use, a large feature set, security, and any number of other factors can have just as big an impact on users as innovation.
People don't use Google search because it's innovative, and people don't use Facebook because it innovated and people won't make their decisions on Google+ based on its innovations.
> Polish, ease of use, a large feature set, security, and any number of other factors can have just as big an impact on users as innovation.
Not if it's something people don't need or want in the first place.
If Google have 'innovated' then it means they've created something original and new that is useful for people. Only time will tell, but my personal opinion, based on what I've seen so far is they haven't.
Well yes, if the users don't want the product then nothing else matters, but I don't see what that has to do with innovation.
I have no problem with your argument that Google+ will need to be useful in some sense to be successful, but originality is hardly necessary for that to be the case.
If what they're going for is "Like Facebook, but better!" then they certainly are going to have a difficult time convincing many users to switch, but I wouldn't say it's anything approaching impossible.
I just don't think their motives will lead to innovation.