But it was a better product, to me, and I enjoyed the groups and such I was on in G+. I think if it was around today, maybe with different branding, it would actually be doing quite well.
Internally @ Google most Googler's resented G+ for the way Vic ran the project and the way L&S let that happen. But it was implemented fairly well. I think it mainly confused the public because it was not Facebook and not Twitter, a bit nerdy, and it did poorly at the kind of network-effect "friends gathering" thing that boosted Facebook in its growth phase (and MySpace and Friendster before that...)
But while Facebook has been around we've seen Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Twitter, Vine, WhatsApp, Reddit, Discord, and a handful of other smaller or regional sites rise. There's very little lock in. You've just got to do something other than "Facebook but different".
They seemed to forget that the thing that made Facebook gain traction initially was a very gradual rollout targeting affinity groups (colleges and college students) at first, with quasi-private networks, before they opened it up to everyone.
Google did the invite-only thing for a while but then IMO tried to grow too quickly too fast, and it felt like a Potemkin village situation.
My feeling is that if you want to launch a social network, you need to concentrate on an actual existing social group and get substantial penetration into that group, then slowly branch out. Trying to get anyone and everyone to sign up from the beginning is almost guaranteed failure, or at least a very hard uphill battle with trying to please everyone at once.