It wasn't just real names though. I agree the world was ready for a Facebook/Twitter hybrid network with the semi-anonymity of twitter but the interactive capa

It wasn't just real names though. I agree the world was ready for a Facebook/Twitter hybrid network with the semi-anonymity of twitter but the interactive capabilities of Facebook. In fact, I think it still is TBH. But Google+ also integrated into your email and all other Google products. It was like Facebook but without the walled garden. So yes, real names were a part of it but Google really wanted 'real everything', which was presumably to increase the users juicy ad relevance. The 'real everything' thing had another effect - confusion. Google+ to comment on YouTube? I had friends literally not know Google owned YouTube, so when they needed this account to set up channels and comment they rightly noped out of there. The name, Google Plus, didn't help. It was never its 'own' thing - it sort of 'was' Google, and Google is massive and has many services. If they have even limited it to a semi-walled garden network they might have had some success with real names, but so open, so interconnected and pervasive was just asking for failure. They do have a chance still though. Get rid of real names, make it a separate network walled off from the rest of Google properties, still public like twitter but with the granularity of circles for semi-private stuff and it'll fly. It's really a good service, much better than Twitter and despite the more 'anonymous' nature of the network it would still keep laying the golden advertising egg for them.