I will agree with the author that FB isn't invulnerable, but IMO Google+ simply wasn't compelling or different enough by that point for people to move over from

I will agree with the author that FB isn't invulnerable, but IMO Google+ simply wasn't compelling or different enough by that point for people to move over from FB. The problem was the Google+ tried to be a better FB than FB. There just wasn't anything substantially better from the user's perspective to encourage a shift enmasse. This isn't so much Google+'s failure as a product as it was the astounding success of FB at keeping it's users. Google+ definitely had some cool and interesting features, but people just didn't care. I think a great case study would be to see why MySpace failed to keep it's users and FB got them, and why Google+ couldn't achieve the same critical mass. I think the eventual fracturing of the features of Google+ and migration into other products was a smart move. Here's an example conversation I had at the time with someone about why we should switch over to Google+: Me: It's better! Cool features Friend: Ya but w/e FB already has everyone there...plus those features are meh Me: Ya but privacy! Friend: Let's be real, Google and FB make money the same way...ain't no one's privacy gonna get in the way of that Me: True...