The central premise, that Google+ suffered for lack of brand pages seems flawed to me. I suspect that like me, people use Google+ to read posts by other people, not to be advertised to. Google+ has users making interesting posts in abundance. As an example, see how many Google+ posts have been shared on HN versus Facebook posts.
What Google+ has given me is what I wanted all along - asymetrical following without the limitations of Twitter and without the need for someone to create a brand page before following them becomes acceptible.
Because you commented and now it is an active entry.
But you are right. It is a useless article. I think a lot of companies will like the professional look of Google+ over Facebook.
Companies will also like that there page is connected to search, maps, products and so on.
This turns into a redirect loop on the iPad as it tries to send you to the touch version, then the article, then the touch version, then the article...
What Google+ has given me is what I wanted all along - asymetrical following without the limitations of Twitter and without the need for someone to create a brand page before following them becomes acceptible.