Google+'s entire thesis here is based upon introducing another level of abstraction, Circles, into social networking. It's risky. Users generally don't want to learn new abstractions unless they provide a massive benefit or can be mapped onto something they already understand.
Will this complexity be something users embrace? Facebook clearly thinks the answer is "No." (And probably has evidence to prove it.) The adoption of G+ so far is by techie types who love new abstractions and want absolute control, and is no indication of how the world at large is going to react to it.
Crossing the chasm for this product is going to be particularly tough. The population of early adopters (techy types) happens to overlap precisely with the population that will not be turned off by the complexity introduced by Circles. This is a deadly combination, and will likely put up a wall through which the adoption of Google+ will not pass.
This post suggests yet another abstraction, tags, on top of everything else. It's a common reaction: engineer sees a flaw in the degree of control in a design, and introduces a new level of indirection to add the necessary control. Of course, this translates into less adoption, since this makes the product more complex and less approachable.
The Linux GUI is an example of this trap being fallen into over and over again for decades. (It's come a long way, of course, and a large reason for that has been the ability for people to learn how to say "No.")
Users generally don't want to learn new abstractions unless they provide a massive benefit or can be mapped onto something they already understand.
With Circles, Google is touching right at heart of human social interaction: You show different sides of your personality to different groups of people. With your parents, you talk incessantly about the grandkids. With your buddies, you talk about old times and shared hobbies. With your colleagues, you talk about your industry. You occasionally mix things up a tiny bit, but you don't go overboard.
I'm convinced that 99% of the human race gets this. (The other 1% are intolerable bores.)
Now, I'm not convinced Google has nailed the UI for Circles. For example, if you want to know who can read your comments on somebody else's post, you need to click on little blue "Limited" link, and try to make out the profile photos. In real life, you would just look around the room.
So there's more work to be done. But I suspect that "social circles" are something that users already understand, and which they'll value.
Right, this is a fair point, and what I think G+ is banking on. The abstraction and additional complexity is clearly there. On the one hand, the modelling part of the complexity is a wash, since as you state humans generally already understand separating their social circles. It's the application of the model that people will find confusing, and will require a learning curve. It might turn out that just getting through the modelling phase successfully will be enough for enough people to sign up, and the complexity of learning how to apply the model effectively can be optional and left to the user to discover.
Circles are great, however, the stream only does an okay job of using that information. All it takes in one hyper-poster or hyper-thread to overwhelm your stream, despite any ordering based on circle priority.
Google+ isn't just 'techie types'. All of my friends (the ones I care about) have actually picked it up and we're all hooked. My family has joined as well and love hangouts.
Nobody I've talked to thinks circles are complex (most of my friends are non-technical). The abstraction you refer to is not foreign at all -- it is modeled after real-life social circles.
Will this complexity be something users embrace? Facebook clearly thinks the answer is "No." (And probably has evidence to prove it.) The adoption of G+ so far is by techie types who love new abstractions and want absolute control, and is no indication of how the world at large is going to react to it.
Crossing the chasm for this product is going to be particularly tough. The population of early adopters (techy types) happens to overlap precisely with the population that will not be turned off by the complexity introduced by Circles. This is a deadly combination, and will likely put up a wall through which the adoption of Google+ will not pass.
This post suggests yet another abstraction, tags, on top of everything else. It's a common reaction: engineer sees a flaw in the degree of control in a design, and introduces a new level of indirection to add the necessary control. Of course, this translates into less adoption, since this makes the product more complex and less approachable.
The Linux GUI is an example of this trap being fallen into over and over again for decades. (It's come a long way, of course, and a large reason for that has been the ability for people to learn how to say "No.")