I guess we're still talking past each other. > It's hard to imagine it could not have made a significant amount of money on ads. Yes, I agree. And Google knew

I guess we're still talking past each other. > It's hard to imagine it could not have made a significant amount of money on ads. Yes, I agree. And Google knew this better than either of us. Therefore no one at Google ever would have said, "We need to close down Google+ because it is not making enough money." It was making zero dollars, because they chose to give it no way make money, directly. There was no sign-up fee, and there was no advertising. Your original comment that I was replying to: > Had they done so, I wonder if they would've considered the platform more viable long-term? They don't need to turn on ads to know if it is viable, because they can just turn on ads in their heads. "Google+ has this many users, who use it this often per day. Therefore, if we were to turn on advertising, it would probably bring in about $___________ per year." They did the math. They thought it still wasn't worth it.