So as most of my close friends know, I'm a huge user and advocate for people using Google and their associated products. While I do love and use all of Google's online offerings I am not thrilled with the way they currently handle image storage and handling. So they offer a image management software called Picasa which has an online component called "Web Albums". This is an online location where you can store some of your albums or single pictures for sharing with family and friends. The free version gives you 1 GB of online storage which is the same amount of storage as you get with their Docs product. The one difference is with documents the sizes are generally so small that you don't utilize half of the 1 GB storage cap and with pictures the sizes for each photo can take up the equivalent space of 10-20 documents.
I bring all this up because I also enjoy using Google+ immensely but they have tied in the photo sharing used on Google+ into the 1 GB that you are allotted with the Web Albums in Picasa. This is a HUGE problem for me. I understand that they aren't like Facebook, thankfully, but even Facebook allows you to store as much photo's as you want on your profile. They do this because they understand that the more you use, store, and share the more you will use their product, the more you will "live" inside their product and the more you will recruit people to their product.
I understand that you can purchase more storage and that it's fairly cheap. Here's my problem with that argument. When you are trying to compete with arguably the worlds #1 social network and you look at all the pictures hosted and shared within said social network, you shouldn't just impose some limit on your users unless they are willing to pay. Again, going back to the idea that the more your users use your product the more time they will spend, the more people they will bring in with them and the happier they will be method. Just my two cents.