I mean, just compare the time spent on what Google got right, verse what they didn't. And yet the conclusion implies that it doesn't even matter, because people won't bother with three social networks at once.
I also think it is simply too early to define what Google+ is or what niche it serves best. A lot of these criticisms could be said about Facebook when it was in its early stages too (no brand profiles, lack of returning users, etc).
He's doing it wrong. You don't file people by their interests, you file people based on how interested you are in them. I have family, close friends, acquaintances, and people that i'm following who I don't know. The main problem with Facebook is the large number of people who I'm connected to (and want to be connected to), but I don't care about their status updates.
Most people end up going into acquaintances and 'following', but that is how it is in real life too.
My close family and friends group has plenty of action, because I have stuff to talk with them about.
Tagging posts or users based on what it is about is ultimately an intractable management problem for the end user.
