The more important ideas you have, the more influential you become. The more influential you are, the more engagement. This is true for both Twitter and Google+.
The difference between them is the medium. Google+ allows for a happy medium between Twitter and Facebook. It allows for a high stream of engagement. The problem with this is the engagement is long-winded, mostly unheard, and incredibly unorganized. On Twitter, you also have a high engagement mark, but the posts can be just as lost in clutter and spam. At the least, Twitter’s character limit makes people get to the point or share items in a different venue, which is something that becomes a problem on a venue like Google+ — Scoble’s posts themselves can be a little long* and the threads he builds are equally long. I cannot see why this would be any more favored to Twitter.
There are two big reasons why there is “passion and excitement”:
- Google+ is new, so people are excited to get involved with a conversational thread that is psuedo-personal.
- Google+ is invite only and fosters “small-world” or “groupthink” like conversations.
The first reason is circumstantial. The second reason is a nature of the service. Of course there is passion in a technology thread when all the people are going to be technology oriented, as the service is invite-only.
Boring seems to strong. Twitter now has a niche that is clearly differentiated alongside Google+. On the same lines, Facebook is also establishing one. There is no need (yet), for any company to start making large changes. In many ways, the lack of change is what makes Twitter great.
* – To be fair, some posts can be shorter; however, the longer the post or share, the longer the engagement. In any case, there is likely a good number of people who like the shorter style of communication.