The analysis seems lacking to me, and a little scattered. I really like google+: I prefer it to twitter and linkedin, and will use it as a replacement for them

The analysis seems lacking to me, and a little scattered. I really like google+: I prefer it to twitter and linkedin, and will use it as a replacement for them. In my opinion, it's not really a facebook killer, though; as pointed out here in the comments and elsewhere around the internet: 1) Bootstrapping a very large social graph is hard. Facebook knows this and is urgently trying to keep Google's mitts off their own graph. 2) The UI design decisions make a world of difference in usage. Facebook just isn't going to be used like Google+; it does not truly conceive of, or wish to be, a multi-persona system. Zuckerberg doesn't believe in such a thing, and neither do his top executives. They frequently push the idea of an integrated work/personal life in speeches and interviews. Facebook's design and usability (and privacy settings) exemplify this approach; they will appeal to plenty of people, perhaps even most. It takes more brain cells and more effort to keep social interactions segmented. The tool appeals to smart online people who wish to maintain multiple personas on-line; personal and work. Bloggers, and 'personalities' will find it most compelling, and anecdotally, that's who I'm seeing most in my stream (and finding it far easier to interact with them thn on their blogs/on twitter, incidentally). It will find a great niche doing that; hopefully it will be a giant niche! I don't think it will replace facebook, or be anywhere near the 50% mark in users or engagement. It's too brainy a product, made by (great) engineers and designers, while facebook is still a party. Generally the fraternity houses throw better parties, engineers make better cars. This is roughly the same in my opinion.