Google.
helloform.com
helloform.com
The other point of contention seems the assumption that it’s not needed and thus it's being forced upon us, but the need for it is so clear that these questions strike me as insincere: 90% of G+ purpose is getting users to signup and create profiles then have these profiles manifest in the thumbnail pictures across Google’s products, whether they be commenting on Blogger, youtube, or any of their app stores, or clustering articles around the same author in search results. This sort of tech blog fodder of “Google is trying to compete with X and thus are destroying themselves” is the stuff of linkbait nonsense I wish would go away.
The whole point of the article is to alude not to how good/bad Google+ is (heck, the article has nothing to do with Google+ at all - which you probably noticed, or should have), but how Google would be so much better if they looked back at their roots.