Although I am all about us G-plussers maintaining control, I think MySpace sucked because users had too much
control, frankly. All the glittering backgrounds + five media players and picture rolls and all that. However, G+ gives us control in the way that I like... our content streams. MySpace gave too much control in the aesthetics department, and it was a hard lesson in how badly the average Joe or Jane is at being tasteful.
I am not the only person I know who felt that it simply became too tedious to even view some peoples' profiles at times, whereas Facebook provided a consistent aesthetic environment. Things were fairly straightforward, and importantly, pretty simple. Even the average dummy could use it, and everything maintained a consistent look and feel.
G+ seems a bit more esoteric, and I hesitate to call it a clone of Facebook at all. I haven't yet seen exact details about the inspiration, but my guess is that nobody at Google was quite trying to topple Facebook.
Mostly, I really enjoy +Tom Anderson
's concept that social networking doesn't have to be a zero sum game; I am all about that. I don't think G+ is a Facebook killer, but I also don't think the success of Google+ is dependent whether or not it can replicate a Facebook-like experience.
The key is in providing a new
experience, and whether G+ gets 500 million users or only 15 million, I think it should stick to its roots. Just as we usually dislike "two-faced" people, who always change in deceitful ways so they can get ahead, I think the same goes for social networks... just stay true to your original concept, G+.