1) First and foremost, Circles gets it right. For the first time I have a quick and easy way to post content in one place that is filtered out (rather than filtered in) to multiple audiences. If I want to have a private post/discussion with my mom and my sister, that's just as easy as making a post 100% public, and just as easy as posting something to a weird and hard to define Venn diagram of relationships.
I have a series of circles set up just for posting non-public content. One of those is the circle I'll share checkins with, which might be vaguely defined as "people who I can be damn sure have no connection to weird stalker types". I could use friends+family for that, but frankly my "friends" circle is pretty damn small. So it needs to be bigger than that, but smaller than everyone I know, and perhaps there are friends who don't need to know where I am 24/7. As odd as that group is to define, Google+ does it right out of the box with ease.
With blogs, Twitter, Facebook, forums, etc, there is one bucket, and everyone is part of one conversation. That's creepy and very limiting. Circles feels natural.
2) Non-reciprocal friending/following. This is the major problem with Facebook. I have tons of people I've met over the decades who I'd enjoy keeping track of. But they aren't my friends, and I don't need them chiming in on conversations with actual family and friends. And there are others who I just want to read, and it would be nice to have them on my stream/wall.
Facebook can sort of do that, but it doesn't feel natural. I don't "like" but I do want to read his posts. The idea that I would "friend" him or he would "friend" me is silly. And that silly factor has always been one of my problems with both Twitter and Facebook. The relationship analogy they force you into is innovative, but not in a good way.
3) It's Google. Let's be honest, Google is not going anywhere à la AOL, AltaVista, Friendster, etc. If you want to pick a place to focus your social network, Google is a pretty safe bet. And just my opinion, but since Facebook is largely just Mark Zuckerberg's id (not in a good way), I don't think it really has the legs people think it does.
Yes, Google's other social network forays, Buzz and Orkut, flopped badly. But they didn't have the engineered-smart feel Google+ does. Honestly, Google+ just matches what I already wanted to do, while the others felt like "build it and they will come" apps.
And yes, Google can be creepy. But at some point you need to decide who you can trust, and I "trust" Google. I'm sure they'll make mistakes, as they have in the past, but at least I get the sense they honestly want to do the right thing. The other option is to live in a cabin in the woods somewhere and write manifestos no one reads.
4) The features. I love the features. All the incredibly useful and needed stuff that was missing elsewhere is here for free.
- Free and full featured photo hosting? Check.
- Editing for posts _*and*_ comments? Check.
- Fine-grained access for personal info? Check.
- Real responses from developers? Check.
- Real account backup or deletion? Check.
- Robust enough to do more than post what I had for lunch? Check.
And the thing is still in beta. Sure, lots of stuff still needed, but I'm confident it's in the pipeline, likely almost ready to be pushed out.
