That is like saying google.com when it launched should have had low engagement because there was also yahoo.com as the dominant player. It makes no sense. Googl

That is like saying google.com when it launched should have had low engagement because there was also yahoo.com as the dominant player. It makes no sense. Google.com had crazy engagement because the product rocked. It did have a gradual growth because it took a while for people to hear about it but when they did try it, they got glued. Same with facebook. I simply don't see many people getting glued to google+. Now you can argue that it's because not a lot of people are on it to which I counter that 40+M people are on it; way more than enough for a good product to score engagement. You can also argue that 40+M members are too isolated groups, to which I say who's fault is that? A big part of doing social is having a growth and engagement strategy. The only strategy google seemed to have is to slap a G+ signup button on their homepage. All that has done is deliver false signs of success.