This argument doesn't make sense. Google did profile pages long before Google+. And advertisers don't need your real name and baby pictures to target advertisements at you. (I personally see no value in this for any advertisers, but I'm speaking for myself and not Google.)
> And advertisers don't need your real name and baby pictures to target advertisements at you.
But being able to use data available to ascertain when you're about to have a baby, on the other hand is immensely valuable.
In fact, when I worked at Yahoo (left about 7 years ago), Yahoo had a major project to analyze clickstreams where one of the goals was to determine when you were near certain "life changes" such as buying a car, moving house... and having a baby. Because they result in lots of related spending, more so than most other periods of your life.
And being able to tie product recommendations to your friends is also immensely valuable, because social proof is one of the strongest drivers we have for making decisions. The closer you can get to implying that all of someones friends thinks your product is really cool, the easier the sale will get.
How could you possibly can think that knowing someone's actual real identity, which is publicly linked to mountains of personality and behavior and social connection details, is irrelevant to advertising?
> And advertisers don't need your real name and baby pictures
What a wonderful observation.
If you accept the characterization that Google's "free" software product users (us) are called Google's (eye balls) product for its clients (advertisers), the intriguing question is just which (new?) "client" of Google is interested in us as identified individuals.
Things have changed from the days of being solely limited to the big rectangular state. Now, it's all fair game.
Besides, it was the Picasa-requiring-profiles thing which was going down when RNCH started. That Other Thing wasn't even ready for prime time at that point.
