When Google+ first launched, most people saw it, correctly, as a  competitor to Facebook. But as you try Google's social network, you  realize that it has a lot in common with Twitter too. That versatility  could be Google's strength -- but it could be its downfall too. Is  Google+ trying to do too much?
 
 Google+'s similarities to Facebook are obvious: You can use it to share updates, pictures and videos with  family and friends. But Google+ can also be a lot like Twitter. Like  Twitter (and unlike Facebook), absolute strangers can follow you without  you following them or approving them (you can block people if you  want). And while you can use Google+ to share personal news with people  close to you, you can also use it to broadcast your thoughts on the news  of the day to thousands of people you've never met. 
 In fact, my early impression of Google+ is that it is being used more like Twitter than like Facebook, that is  more as broadcast than as friendly sharing. Of course, my circles are  mostly filled at this point with tech journalists, both because those  are the people who got early invites and because they're the people I  know. And tech journalists are notorious blowhards. So the use of  Google+ may change as it expands to the general public. 
 As Google+ expands, though, I wonder if people will know what to make of  this Swiss Army Knife of social networks. After all, what killed Google Wave wasn't that it did too little, it was that it did too much. It was an  email system, a chat network, a file sharing service, a project  management device and more -- it did so much that people couldn't figure  out how to use it. 
 The fact that Google+ can be both Facebook and Twitter at once (with  maybe a little Tumblr thrown in) could be its greatest competitive edge  against those other services. But it could also leave users bewildered.
 
 And the confusion won't be confined to how you share things in your own  account. Maybe more difficult will be knowing what to expect of the  people you follow. When I follow Lance Armstrong on Twitter, I know what  I'm going to get: That portion of his thoughts that he thinks are  appropriate for thousands of people he doesn't know. If I were to follow  him on Google+, I don't know what I'd get, because I don't know how  he'll see the forum. If Lance decides Google+ is like Facebook, I may  see almost nothing because he's only sharing with his actual family and  friends. Or I may get the same kind of firehose of pronouncements I see  on Twitter.
 
 Of course, the great thing about Google+ is that you don't have to  choose between the two different ways of communicating, some posts can  go only to your closest friends, others to any Tom, Dick or Harry. I  hope that as Google+ rolls out to hundreds of millions of new users,  they'll see those distinct ways of communicating as powerful. But I fear  that for many, it may just be confusing.
