I downvoted you for using the word "ghey" as some sort of perjorative, but the rest of what you're saying isn't doing much to dissuade me from my assessment. (E

I downvoted you for using the word "ghey" as some sort of perjorative, but the rest of what you're saying isn't doing much to dissuade me from my assessment. (Edit - the OP has edited to remove the word "ghey" since my comment, it was originally right before the phrase "blog posts" as an adjective.) IBM didn't lose out to an "operating system," if anything, it was Microsoft that made them capable of competing in the personal computer space. Google+ is not having trouble gaining traction because they don't have enough features. I get that you're trying to make a salient point about not underestimating new products, but it's not really cohesive. The fact that Microsoft and Google have succeeded with products in the past doesn't lead automatically to the conclusion that G+ is going to succeed. Google+ could be a success, or it could wither and die. For any positive example you cite, you could equally cite things like Microsoft BOB, the Zune, Apple Newton, OS/2, WebOS, Maemo, Sega Dreamcast, etc. There's far more to success than buckets of cash, innovation for the sake of innovation, or yard-long feature lists. I hope G+ continues to improve, but its success is not a foregone conclusion.