[debaserab2]

I think the point of the article is that the intent and initial design of Facebook was radically different as it's original purpose was to provide something that did not exist previously that is useful. This isn't Google giving us something innovative, or useful in any new way, this is Google trying to get a slice of the social network ad market.

What reason do you have for using Google+ that is not already satisfied by FB or Twitter?

Feels kind of like Bing.

[j_r_]

Just think about what market Google entered in the first place. It was a market with things like altavista.com being the dominant search engines.

Facebook was first, so now it has squatters rights? I don't think so.

[debaserab2]

I feel (and I believe this to be the author's sentiment as well) that Google Plus does not innovate enough on any existing products to grant it significant relevance.

Google dominated because it did search much better than it's competitors and got people the search results they were looking for.

Google+ does nothing for me that I cannot get with Facebook.

[j_r_]

Well, it seems to me that the author makes some kind of moral argument out of the whole thing in a David vs. Goliath kind of way. Certainly both are (huge) corporations but I still trust Google more. They still seem to have a sane leadership which I'm not so sure about with Facebook. Maybe I just don't like Zuckerberg ... He just is not the kind of underdog that I would like to succeed. (Edit: Neither is Google, but the author makes it look like Facebook should be support in a way.)

[jase_coop]

I'm neither pro Google or Facebook.

I merely make a comparison between the early days, intentions and motives of both Google+ and Facebook, how they're different and why I think that difference is important.