And given how the first few weeks of "frictionless sharing" was, I'm kinda glad I don't have that many people spamming me with content more suitable for Twitter.
The public in general is just going to use whatever apps and products work for them. It is the organisations role to adapt their products in a way that a large enough majority wants to use it. Or accept that their product is not going to be as popular.
That is the situation we are in at the moment. Anyone who is more than a casual user of social media expects alot more, scheduling content, tracking, proper statistics, updates from 3rd party apps. If you don't keep up with the competition, you will be ignored. As we have seen.
I don't buy that excuse of "overwhelming streams" from Vic Gundotra because Google+ has great controls for the amount of content you see in your main stream, and with circles it is a powerful way of categorising your content and accessing only what you want. Plus, when managed correctly, an API agreement with a select number of partners could give way to more user adoption without giving away full control.
I'd just create a G+ app myself, but... well that's what this story is about, isn't it? You can't.
I prefer G+ right now because it has a low spam ratio, unlike my Facebook feed, so if this is the reason for disallowing write access, I align with it.
All I'm doing it pointing out that keeping Google+ too closed is why countless articles and technology people are saying it is dead. It's dead because no one wants to share content on it, because Google are purposefully restricting the freedom to do so which people are used to.
