The author's argument seems to be hinging on his notion that Google has "superior everything", "it is Google after all". I was with him to a point - the notion

The author's argument seems to be hinging on his notion that Google has "superior everything", "it is Google after all". I was with him to a point - the notion of absorbing products into features of G+ is a powerful strategy that would make it difficult for the competition - but the problem with this approach for Google is that it takes their search product further and further away from what made it great in the first place. Taking this strategy to its logical conclusion almost by definition means making search more complicated than it needs to be. Google likes to say its mission is organizing the world's information, but its customers like to believe that Google's mission is simple, effective search. When it comes to defining the brand, the customer always wins. This could be Google's downfall.