[asto]

I think I wasn't clear enough there. Google+ is not more widely used than twitter NOW. There are a lot of people on Facebook who were formerly on Orkut, Myspace etc who've never had a twitter account and just don't GET twitter. If I had to pick the next facebook sized network, it would be Google+ and not twitter for that reason.

PS: I don't even believe the current growth/engagement numbers coming out of twitter entirely. There's a lot more spammy accounts there than used to be that put out hundreds of tweets a day and I wonder if that's heavily padding twitter's user growth currently. Most of my current followers are "fake". Same with my friends who aren't particularly famous. The statistics don't reflect this properly.

[zizee]

I remember seeing a study investigating the proportion of active accounts, vs. the number of dormant accounts. I think the study found that only about 20% of accounts were active. I can only imagine that the ratio of real accounts to automated accounts is far worse.

I also think that SV peeps use twitter at a far higher percentage than the real world, leading to very skewed perceptions.

[jaems33]

Really? I know a lot of people around the world who use Twitter, ranging from notable authors to famous physicists to fashion designers to hockey sportswriters. G+ MIGHT get there but for now, I know far more variety of disciplines who actively use Twitter over G+ and Facebook.

[raverbashing]

Remember how other competitors to Twitter (Pownce, Jaiku, etc) some didn't have the character limit, allowed the user to post photos, etc

See where they are now?

There you have it

It may be easier for G+ to be used, and this is important, but Twitter has a more faithful following, and more specific uses

[true_religion]

Were they competitors to Twitter, or did they stray too far into being seen as competitors to Facebook?