Why Google+ still doesn't beat Facebook and what best Google can do
I admit Google+ has several advanced features over Facebook/Twitter, such as video conferencing, circle-based access control, always-on HTTPS encryption, circle sharing, etc. But do you know why people at large still don't switch to G+?
Because in order to switch, there must be a transition period, during which people will visit both Facebook and G+ until all their friends are on G+. (Tweets can be embedded in Facebook so we only consider Facebook here.) Until then can they get rid of Facebook entirely.
But most people probably don't want to go to both Facebook and G+ for a period because Facebook already serves their basic needs well: exchanging updates and photos with friends. After all, ordinary people just need a Notepad, not an ultra-advanced text editor.
Facebook is like Apple, a totally closed kingdom. History has proven that proprietary kingdoms like Apple are very hard to die; they always have a bunch of die-hard fans even if the majority of the market is dominated by an open architecture: PC.
So, like it or not, Facebook will continue to live. The best Google can do is to implement an open architecture/protocol for social networking, just like the email protocol is for asynchronous communication. I believe "Next-Generation Blogging" (NGB) is a very cool idea to do this, and Googler +Brad Fitzpatrick
is already working on it. See this vivid illustration for what NGB is: https://plus.google.com/102291835965130378165/posts/BZgKHy2NsYc