>Contrary to popular belief, Google+ was never created to directly compete for people's time on the internet. A simple, ad free system, Google+ was launched to compete for users' personal data. Becoming the primary platform for social networking would simply be a bonus

So it is a Facebook competitor then?

I think the author is trying to make a poorly articulated argument that the _intent_ of G+ is not to "kill" Facebook, but instead improve Google's targeted advertising capabilities. To some extent, this is true, but I'm not sure if it is a relevant distinction. If Google had the option to replace Facebook wholesale, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance. Perhaps "not competing" is merely a way of lowering expectations?

Out of curiosity, how does g+ collect any more useful personal data than, say, google reader's follow lists or google buzz interactions? Is it about the circles and people who you "add"?

Probably one of the worst articles I've read on HN in a while.

The first five paragraphs contain generic filler, which are then followed by the bombshell that more information about users provides greater opportunity for targeted advertising.

Someone's being paid by the word, IMO.

I think I understand the author's point. They aren't trying to compete with Facebook, they are just attempting to exist in Facebook's market, make money by all of the same means, and attract the same customers who will then do most of the same things.

Make sense?

tldr; g+ is about helping google make tonnes more money; it will do that even after its crappy engagement; don't ask me how.

Insert Oceania joke...