A network's value is correlated to the number of (potential) friends reachable through it, and how easily you can. There are many almost-non-technical reasons

A network's value is correlated to the number of (potential) friends reachable through it, and how easily you can. There are many almost-non-technical reasons why Hangout isn't an adequate replacement for Whatsapp: - not intuitive enough to create and keep hangout groups. I can probably use G+ circles, but that's cumbersome. - I believe that you need a GMail account. There are people without a GMail account I want to reach in group chats, and expecting them to create a new mail account for that feels like too much asking. - the big amorphous G+ blob is so shapeless that we can't think of it It's _possible_ to use Hangouts, possibly with other bits of G+, as a Whatsapp replacement, but it's not easier nor more obvious. Google didn't envision it that way, they wanted you to produce more durable (and searchable) stuff as G+ posts, and to manage access through a circle system that appeals the 5% of the population with an engineering degree. They don't care about technologically-illiterate people, nor those without a GMail account, let alone without a smartphone. But we shouldn't care about why G+ isn't an adequate Whatsapp killer, as Google didn't buy them. What's interesting is, why FB couldn't build it?