I fail to understand this way to reason about the issue.
G+ is young. It has yet to prove its worth. Do I like it? Maybe. Little chaotic, far too much crap content so far (my G+ is worse than my FB stream and I tried to 'follow' only tech guys that I admire otherwise or find interesting to read about). I don't care about these 'see this graph about the explosive growth of G+' graphics: It's completely useless in my world so far. The UI doesn't scale. The content is miserable. 'Social' features are missing (tell me about events, birthdays).
Using it as a _blogging_ software is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read/seen.
Now your argument comes along and says 'You know what? This thing you all dislike about this new product here? The product it tries hard to compete with, one way or another, has the very same issue'.
Uhm. What? Right.. So - it's the same crap regarding 'real names'. Missed chance. Leads (with other things) to (and it hurts me to write that..) lower scores than FB in my world..
G+ is young. It has yet to prove its worth. Do I like it? Maybe. Little chaotic, far too much crap content so far (my G+ is worse than my FB stream and I tried to 'follow' only tech guys that I admire otherwise or find interesting to read about). I don't care about these 'see this graph about the explosive growth of G+' graphics: It's completely useless in my world so far. The UI doesn't scale. The content is miserable. 'Social' features are missing (tell me about events, birthdays).
Using it as a _blogging_ software is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read/seen.
Now your argument comes along and says 'You know what? This thing you all dislike about this new product here? The product it tries hard to compete with, one way or another, has the very same issue'.
Uhm. What? Right.. So - it's the same crap regarding 'real names'. Missed chance. Leads (with other things) to (and it hurts me to write that..) lower scores than FB in my world..