11 ms·

This is exciting and all -- and much as I would love to see a serious competitor to Facebook, I still don't know how I would convince any of my non-techie frien

This is exciting and all -- and much as I would love to see a serious competitor to Facebook, I still don't know how I would convince any of my non-techie friends that they should switch to this. Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests. Although it looks like a big discussion group, the news feed is really a giant personality-defining display for vain people. I saw a programmer friend post annoyance over some Android API today and I suspect that this was more than just a spontaneous exclamation -- he was communicating that he is smart (to non-techies) and that he is "cutting edge" (to fellow programmers). Privacy? I have the feeling that most really don't care very much. But ironically, I think the privacy-thing could actually work in facebook's favor. Here is why: I use fb a lot even though I don't like their privacy policies. I trust google more than facebook. Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches. When I am on facebook I behave like I am in public. I don't hope for the best and write secret stuff anywhere. But with all the google searches I make through a day, I am giving google a lot of very personal information that I would not like anyone to see. I would hate to see something that I was searching for somehow show up in a stream for my friends to see because I accidentally clicked a +1 button or similar. Finally, there is the fact that even if I can export my graph from fb to g+, it's worthless until my friends do the same. And I just don't see that happening before they come up with some truly ground breaking feature that will allow me to get laid with any friend I choose by clicking on their picture :-)

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Roritharr 15y ago
If Google has enough money to develop self driving cars, there has to be some for the development of remote seduction.
- metageek 15y ago
  Yeah, but who wants to seduce a car?
joeguilmette 15y ago
i just got an invite and am instantly bored. i already have a news feed, i already have a way to share pictures, i already have a place to share links and i already have a way to chat with friends. on the + side (hah! get it??), the ui looks nice, so hopefully this means google with start paying more attention to the look and feel of their applications.
- DrCatbox 15y ago
  I distrust Facebook so much that I dont have a news feed, I dont have a way to share my pictures (because who wants to share 1024x768 resolution pictures with their friends? ffs why do I then have a 15mp camera?) and I have skype to chat with friends. Google+ is refreshing, it shows social networking can be better.
  - pallinder 15y ago
    Couldnt agree more with you. Perhaps this is the thing for us non facebook users to use amongst ourselves :)
    - encoderer 15y ago
      There are certainly many people who avoid or hate facebook. All Google needs is a beachhead, right? For Facebook it was Harvard and then Ivy League schools. Perhaps for Google their beachhead is the Anti-Facebook people. Once it grows a bit, people start writing apps that abstract FB and G+. Think: iPhone app with a Newsfeed feature that just seamlessly merges your FB and G+ feed. The existence of apps like that will make it trivial for people to have a G+ profile in addition to -- even if never instead of -- their Facebook account. And then it's up to Google to grow more and more mindshare. Maybe it'll always be an also-ran. A Facebook lil brother. But I wouldn't just write it off. We've seen this story before.
  - joeguilmette 15y ago
    as a camera buff, why dont you just use flickr? also, if you distrust facebook, what makes you trust google? they've had plenty of privacy issues in the past in regards to social networking (buzz, etc). Google+ launched an hour ago in private beta, isn't it a bit early to call it refreshing and better? :)
MatthewPhillips 15y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about the wall being a place for vanity. But it's still a self-censored place for vanity. I guess the question is whether people will go to Google+ to tell that dirty joke they don't want to say in front of their aunt, if they'll just not say it, or if they'll say it anyways, on Facebook.
dusklight 15y ago
Hangouts is going to drive adoption. It's chat roulette without the roulette.
- username3 15y ago
  or tinychat
- rektide 15y ago
  Actually it's just Stickam. One that encourages you to be a leet idler.
ignifero 15y ago
I think it would be a good practice to decouple it from google accounts - I think most people see a distinction between gmail and twitter/facebook . Most won't lose crucial information if their facebook account is stolen, in contrast to gmail. I for one don't want the two accounts to be detectably connected. Gmail=serious/work stuff, Social=fun Also, the one thing i that could hamper its adoption is that google tends to make its products overly complicated ("for the computer-literate, not soccer moms")
k-mcgrady 15y ago
I don't think the news feed/wall is a place for vanity. It really depends on the user. Your example of the guy trying to look smart+cutting edge makes sense. For me though, I like to keep my Facebook free of tech/coding stuff even though that is a large part of my life. It has no relevance to my Facebook friends so it should not be there. I put that type of stuff on twitter, and on twitter I do not follow people who I am Facebook friends with (and do not allow them to follow me). In other words my entire online life is compartmentalized. It makes sense for me to do this even though it can be tedious. Circles would make this a lot easier by the looks of things, giving me one place to post everything, simply choosing who sees what content. Getting people to use Google+ when they already use Facebook and/or Twitter though is Google's biggest challenge.
- stef25 15y ago
  Personally, I've got about half a dozen interests that I only want to share with people who find it relevant or interesting, like your example about tech/coding stuff. I don't share that either but I would if I could better control who it goes out to. This feature sounds great to me.
  - k-mcgrady 15y ago
    That's exactly what I was getting at. And I think most people are in similar situations. But Google+ and Circles will only work right if all your friends use it. Otherwise it'll be just another network to update with specific content.
    - metageek 15y ago
      They've got an answer for that: you can add someone who doesn't have an account to a circle, and they'll get your message in email.
jm4 15y ago
Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches. When I am on facebook I behave like I am in public. I don't hope for the best and write secret stuff anywhere. But with all the google searches I make through a day, I am giving google a lot of very personal information that I would not like anyone to see. I would hate to see something that I was searching for somehow show up in a stream for my friends to see because I accidentally clicked a +1 button or similar. I think you hit the nail on the head. I think Google+ looks pretty neat. It's more along the lines of what I am looking for in a social network than Facebook is. But I do not plan to use it for the exact reasons you mentioned. My searches are private. Anything I do on a social network is public. I do not want the two of them mingling. I don't want the possibility of an accident. I don't want a single entity to "own" my search and social data. I really wish someone else had created this.
- IgorPartola 15y ago
  The solution is simple: move away from using Google for searches. There are alternatives like Bing, Yahoo and Duck Duck Go.
  - pthatcherg 15y ago
    Don't Yahoo and DDG use Bing for their search results? If so, Bing is the only alternative on your list.
    - vollmond 15y ago
      I believe DDG uses a variety of sources for results, including but not limited to Bing.
    - farnsworth 15y ago
      Hm, looks like Alta-Vista is still around...
      - zach 15y ago
        The results come via a rebranded Yahoo! search, which itself consists of rebranded Bing results.
Meai 15y ago
Google is in no way targeting people who are happy with Facebook. Neither do they need to compete with Facebook. They are enhancing their existing products very intelligently across the board. Mass adoption isn't necessary, that will come over time with people using more heavily integrated Google software. Eventually they'll get everyone, via mobile / Google Mail / Google Docs / Google Search or some other venue. Facebook is in no danger _right now_. But long-term they have no chance.
- danssig 15y ago
  It's too early in the morning for this kind of doom and gloom.
daralthus 15y ago
I think the whole thing is more about finding new stuff. New people, new interests. So you don't have to convince your non-techie friends. Everybody reading you posts is like nobody, or at least nobody new. You have to get it to them somehow and here it won't happen just because you have a cool profile picture. Your searches? It won't show up in your feed, it will only count in your interest. Deeply hidden, like it is already. Google seems to be good at this. They are targeted so right on the spot, where the whole social discovery-networking can get better, that I think it could fly without everybody exporting and etc.. Maybe it could get everybody laid, as it won't be starving on your current friends of friends network. :)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
hnsmurf 15y ago
First start by telling them they don't have to switch. There's no reason one can't use both. Facebook would never have gotten past Myspace if users had to switch.
nrbafna 15y ago
on a side note, the mobile app is live in android market. https://market.android.com/details?id=com.google.android.apps.plus https://market.android.com/details?id=com.google.android.app...
nextparadigms 15y ago
"Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests." I totally disagree with that. Facebook sorely lacks such a feature, and the lack of it has led to "spammy" messages from so called "friends" you barely even know, or care about in your list. Google+ seems to solve a lot of issues with Facebook. And I think even non-techies can be relatively easy convinced to use it once they see how it works. Basically, Google+ looks like a huge leap over Facebook because of all those neat products tied together. People will switch from anything as long as there is a big leap in benefits, and I think Google+ offers that.
- ianb 15y ago
  Don't you just hide friends with consistently boring messages? I do, and people I know do. It's a big stick, compared to some more subtle faceting, but it mostly works fine, while putting some pressure on the reader to accept a certain amount of tedium in those people I still want to listen to. There's also event spam, but that one category you can filter out separately (i.e., "ignore events from person X").
  - barista 15y ago
    Facebook already has a conceprt of groups. I frequently share my updates/pictures with only to select set of groups. It's just that it is a bit hard to use it. Nothing that facebook can't fix. Don't know what is so great about this.
    - commandar 15y ago
      The problem is that friend groups in Facebook are an afterthought at best and horrifically broken at times. To the point that they're nearly useless. I've had multiple instances of Facebook deciding to ignore my default post settings for a type of post or album, posting it wide open when it should have been restricted to a certain friend group (mobile apps are especially bad about this, IME). Things I want to share with friends of family may not be things I want coworkers seeing. I don't want to share photos of drunken antics with bar friends with my grandparents. I don't want updates about a sick relative to become office gossip. Yes, the feature sort of exists in Facebook to kind of get this functionality, but there is a massive appeal in a network that treats the idea that not all acquaintances are equal as a core concept. And because it's a central value of the network, I have a lot more faith that it should actually work than the Facebook model, which has already failed me plenty of times in the past.
bauchidgw 15y ago
>Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches. well G watches your searches anyway, even tunes the search results to your search history, as its cookie dependend, not log in dependend. see http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=54048 http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=...
akkartik 15y ago
I find I feel a sort of stage fright at the thought of posting something for my 800 facebook 'friends' to read.
- ern 15y ago
  Why not group your friends, and restrict your posts by default to people you actually care about? The rest won't be aware they are even being filtered.
  - akkartik 15y ago
    That's essentially what Google+ does. Twitter isn't designed for posting to different audiences, and Facebook won't let me show certain posts of my wall to certain people but not others.
    - revorad 15y ago
      Facebook does allow you to do that. It takes a bit of work to filter people out individually or put them in groups, or "circles" if you like. For example, some of my friends are excluded from all my facebook posts as a group by default. I include them only when I want to. I think Google+'s problem might be that it takes too much work to curate circles. Most people might just settle for Facebook because you don't have to think!
- smackfu 15y ago
  If it makes you feel better, most of them surely have their wall set to only show the friends they interact with, and not all friends.
rapind 15y ago
You make a really good point about the fear / miss-conception people will have about having search tied to their profile. I really hope Google realizes that and draws a big fat line between searches and social profiles, and then makes it really apparent to their users. Making people think they're sharing their everyday searches with their social circle is enough to completely kill this before it even gets started.
- scotth 15y ago
  I really don't think this will be an issue. Think of how often you browse Facebook just looking at people and reading info. This is not information I would like to have public any more than I'd like people knowing about what I search for. People won't give this a second thought, and hopefully Google will do a good job in keeping the concepts clearly separated.
  - rapind 15y ago
    Facebook browsing habits don't even come close to the level of personal that google searches do. Even hardcore facebook stalker behaviour pales in comparison to some of the questions people ask google. Anyways, I don't think it's necessarily something people will be alarmed about, I just think it's something that should be made extremely clear because on the off chance people do start to worry, and how fast FUD can travel. It really could kill what looks like a great platform it that happened.
wisty 15y ago
Yeah, google sucks at marketing. It looks like "circles", "hangouts" and "plus" are all kitchy code-words that the engineers thought up. They have no "Unique Value Proposition". Their value proposition is - don't let your mum see what your college roommate tags you in.
lwhi 15y ago
"Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches." I think Facebook does the same - or at least attempts to, through the use of cookies (via embedded apps, and the Facebook comment system). -- I think it's about time Facebook had some serious competition - and I'm hoping that Google+ could provide a good alternative. In relation to the Myspace, Facebook provided an iterative progression. Since its introduction, social networking has obviously become so much more important. I think it's far more difficult for Facebook to iteratively change the paradigm its developed because its users aren't used to change. User re-education is difficult. From what I've read, Google+ is going to offer some valuable features missing from Facebook. The circle idea appeals a lot - and I like the sense that the platform seems to be geared as one tool in a suite of social utilities, rather than an all encompassing monolith. -- "Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests [..]" I don't agree - some people might want everyone to read their posts, but I think that's a small subset of the general population. Re. your example; on the flip-side, I think an awful lot of the non-techies will quickly get bored of hearing about about Android API woes. Circles will provide them with a way to choose, and choice is something which is almost universally lauded.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Roritharr 15y ago

If Google has enough money to develop self driving cars, there has to be some for the development of remote seduction.

metageek 15y ago
Yeah, but who wants to seduce a car?

joeguilmette 15y ago

i just got an invite and am instantly bored. i already have a news feed, i already have a way to share pictures, i already have a place to share links and i already have a way to chat with friends. on the + side (hah! get it??), the ui looks nice, so hopefully this means google with start paying more attention to the look and feel of their applications.

DrCatbox 15y ago
I distrust Facebook so much that I dont have a news feed, I dont have a way to share my pictures (because who wants to share 1024x768 resolution pictures with their friends? ffs why do I then have a 15mp camera?) and I have skype to chat with friends. Google+ is refreshing, it shows social networking can be better.
- pallinder 15y ago
  Couldnt agree more with you. Perhaps this is the thing for us non facebook users to use amongst ourselves :)
  - encoderer 15y ago
    There are certainly many people who avoid or hate facebook. All Google needs is a beachhead, right? For Facebook it was Harvard and then Ivy League schools. Perhaps for Google their beachhead is the Anti-Facebook people. Once it grows a bit, people start writing apps that abstract FB and G+. Think: iPhone app with a Newsfeed feature that just seamlessly merges your FB and G+ feed. The existence of apps like that will make it trivial for people to have a G+ profile in addition to -- even if never instead of -- their Facebook account. And then it's up to Google to grow more and more mindshare. Maybe it'll always be an also-ran. A Facebook lil brother. But I wouldn't just write it off. We've seen this story before.
- joeguilmette 15y ago
  as a camera buff, why dont you just use flickr? also, if you distrust facebook, what makes you trust google? they've had plenty of privacy issues in the past in regards to social networking (buzz, etc). Google+ launched an hour ago in private beta, isn't it a bit early to call it refreshing and better? :)

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about the wall being a place for vanity. But it's still a self-censored place for vanity. I guess the question is whether people will go to Google+ to tell that dirty joke they don't want to say in front of their aunt, if they'll just not say it, or if they'll say it anyways, on Facebook.

dusklight 15y ago

Hangouts is going to drive adoption. It's chat roulette without the roulette.

username3 15y ago
or tinychat
rektide 15y ago
Actually it's just Stickam. One that encourages you to be a leet idler.

ignifero 15y ago

I think it would be a good practice to decouple it from google accounts - I think most people see a distinction between gmail and twitter/facebook . Most won't lose crucial information if their facebook account is stolen, in contrast to gmail. I for one don't want the two accounts to be detectably connected. Gmail=serious/work stuff, Social=fun Also, the one thing i that could hamper its adoption is that google tends to make its products overly complicated ("for the computer-literate, not soccer moms")

k-mcgrady 15y ago

I don't think the news feed/wall is a place for vanity. It really depends on the user. Your example of the guy trying to look smart+cutting edge makes sense. For me though, I like to keep my Facebook free of tech/coding stuff even though that is a large part of my life. It has no relevance to my Facebook friends so it should not be there. I put that type of stuff on twitter, and on twitter I do not follow people who I am Facebook friends with (and do not allow them to follow me). In other words my entire online life is compartmentalized. It makes sense for me to do this even though it can be tedious. Circles would make this a lot easier by the looks of things, giving me one place to post everything, simply choosing who sees what content. Getting people to use Google+ when they already use Facebook and/or Twitter though is Google's biggest challenge.

stef25 15y ago
Personally, I've got about half a dozen interests that I only want to share with people who find it relevant or interesting, like your example about tech/coding stuff. I don't share that either but I would if I could better control who it goes out to. This feature sounds great to me.
- k-mcgrady 15y ago
  That's exactly what I was getting at. And I think most people are in similar situations. But Google+ and Circles will only work right if all your friends use it. Otherwise it'll be just another network to update with specific content.
  - metageek 15y ago
    They've got an answer for that: you can add someone who doesn't have an account to a circle, and they'll get your message in email.

jm4 15y ago

Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches. When I am on facebook I behave like I am in public. I don't hope for the best and write secret stuff anywhere. But with all the google searches I make through a day, I am giving google a lot of very personal information that I would not like anyone to see. I would hate to see something that I was searching for somehow show up in a stream for my friends to see because I accidentally clicked a +1 button or similar. I think you hit the nail on the head. I think Google+ looks pretty neat. It's more along the lines of what I am looking for in a social network than Facebook is. But I do not plan to use it for the exact reasons you mentioned. My searches are private. Anything I do on a social network is public. I do not want the two of them mingling. I don't want the possibility of an accident. I don't want a single entity to "own" my search and social data. I really wish someone else had created this.

IgorPartola 15y ago
The solution is simple: move away from using Google for searches. There are alternatives like Bing, Yahoo and Duck Duck Go.
- pthatcherg 15y ago
  Don't Yahoo and DDG use Bing for their search results? If so, Bing is the only alternative on your list.
  - vollmond 15y ago
    I believe DDG uses a variety of sources for results, including but not limited to Bing.
  - farnsworth 15y ago
    Hm, looks like Alta-Vista is still around...
    - zach 15y ago
      The results come via a rebranded Yahoo! search, which itself consists of rebranded Bing results.

Meai 15y ago

Google is in no way targeting people who are happy with Facebook. Neither do they need to compete with Facebook. They are enhancing their existing products very intelligently across the board. Mass adoption isn't necessary, that will come over time with people using more heavily integrated Google software. Eventually they'll get everyone, via mobile / Google Mail / Google Docs / Google Search or some other venue. Facebook is in no danger _right now_. But long-term they have no chance.

danssig 15y ago
It's too early in the morning for this kind of doom and gloom.

daralthus 15y ago

I think the whole thing is more about finding new stuff. New people, new interests. So you don't have to convince your non-techie friends. Everybody reading you posts is like nobody, or at least nobody new. You have to get it to them somehow and here it won't happen just because you have a cool profile picture. Your searches? It won't show up in your feed, it will only count in your interest. Deeply hidden, like it is already. Google seems to be good at this. They are targeted so right on the spot, where the whole social discovery-networking can get better, that I think it could fly without everybody exporting and etc.. Maybe it could get everybody laid, as it won't be starving on your current friends of friends network. :)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

hnsmurf 15y ago

First start by telling them they don't have to switch. There's no reason one can't use both. Facebook would never have gotten past Myspace if users had to switch.

nrbafna 15y ago

on a side note, the mobile app is live in android market. https://market.android.com/details?id=com.google.android.apps.plus https://market.android.com/details?id=com.google.android.app...

nextparadigms 15y ago

"Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests." I totally disagree with that. Facebook sorely lacks such a feature, and the lack of it has led to "spammy" messages from so called "friends" you barely even know, or care about in your list. Google+ seems to solve a lot of issues with Facebook. And I think even non-techies can be relatively easy convinced to use it once they see how it works. Basically, Google+ looks like a huge leap over Facebook because of all those neat products tied together. People will switch from anything as long as there is a big leap in benefits, and I think Google+ offers that.

ianb 15y ago
Don't you just hide friends with consistently boring messages? I do, and people I know do. It's a big stick, compared to some more subtle faceting, but it mostly works fine, while putting some pressure on the reader to accept a certain amount of tedium in those people I still want to listen to. There's also event spam, but that one category you can filter out separately (i.e., "ignore events from person X").
- barista 15y ago
  Facebook already has a conceprt of groups. I frequently share my updates/pictures with only to select set of groups. It's just that it is a bit hard to use it. Nothing that facebook can't fix. Don't know what is so great about this.
  - commandar 15y ago
    The problem is that friend groups in Facebook are an afterthought at best and horrifically broken at times. To the point that they're nearly useless. I've had multiple instances of Facebook deciding to ignore my default post settings for a type of post or album, posting it wide open when it should have been restricted to a certain friend group (mobile apps are especially bad about this, IME). Things I want to share with friends of family may not be things I want coworkers seeing. I don't want to share photos of drunken antics with bar friends with my grandparents. I don't want updates about a sick relative to become office gossip. Yes, the feature sort of exists in Facebook to kind of get this functionality, but there is a massive appeal in a network that treats the idea that not all acquaintances are equal as a core concept. And because it's a central value of the network, I have a lot more faith that it should actually work than the Facebook model, which has already failed me plenty of times in the past.

bauchidgw 15y ago

>Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches. well G watches your searches anyway, even tunes the search results to your search history, as its cookie dependend, not log in dependend. see http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=54048 http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=...

akkartik 15y ago

I find I feel a sort of stage fright at the thought of posting something for my 800 facebook 'friends' to read.

ern 15y ago
Why not group your friends, and restrict your posts by default to people you actually care about? The rest won't be aware they are even being filtered.
- akkartik 15y ago
  That's essentially what Google+ does. Twitter isn't designed for posting to different audiences, and Facebook won't let me show certain posts of my wall to certain people but not others.
  - revorad 15y ago
    Facebook does allow you to do that. It takes a bit of work to filter people out individually or put them in groups, or "circles" if you like. For example, some of my friends are excluded from all my facebook posts as a group by default. I include them only when I want to. I think Google+'s problem might be that it takes too much work to curate circles. Most people might just settle for Facebook because you don't have to think!
smackfu 15y ago
If it makes you feel better, most of them surely have their wall set to only show the friends they interact with, and not all friends.

rapind 15y ago

You make a really good point about the fear / miss-conception people will have about having search tied to their profile. I really hope Google realizes that and draws a big fat line between searches and social profiles, and then makes it really apparent to their users. Making people think they're sharing their everyday searches with their social circle is enough to completely kill this before it even gets started.

scotth 15y ago
I really don't think this will be an issue. Think of how often you browse Facebook just looking at people and reading info. This is not information I would like to have public any more than I'd like people knowing about what I search for. People won't give this a second thought, and hopefully Google will do a good job in keeping the concepts clearly separated.
- rapind 15y ago
  Facebook browsing habits don't even come close to the level of personal that google searches do. Even hardcore facebook stalker behaviour pales in comparison to some of the questions people ask google. Anyways, I don't think it's necessarily something people will be alarmed about, I just think it's something that should be made extremely clear because on the off chance people do start to worry, and how fast FUD can travel. It really could kill what looks like a great platform it that happened.

wisty 15y ago

Yeah, google sucks at marketing. It looks like "circles", "hangouts" and "plus" are all kitchy code-words that the engineers thought up. They have no "Unique Value Proposition". Their value proposition is - don't let your mum see what your college roommate tags you in.

lwhi 15y ago

"Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches." I think Facebook does the same - or at least attempts to, through the use of cookies (via embedded apps, and the Facebook comment system). -- I think it's about time Facebook had some serious competition - and I'm hoping that Google+ could provide a good alternative. In relation to the Myspace, Facebook provided an iterative progression. Since its introduction, social networking has obviously become so much more important. I think it's far more difficult for Facebook to iteratively change the paradigm its developed because its users aren't used to change. User re-education is difficult. From what I've read, Google+ is going to offer some valuable features missing from Facebook. The circle idea appeals a lot - and I like the sense that the platform seems to be geared as one tool in a suite of social utilities, rather than an all encompassing monolith. -- "Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests [..]" I don't agree - some people might want everyone to read their posts, but I think that's a small subset of the general population. Re. your example; on the flip-side, I think an awful lot of the non-techies will quickly get bored of hearing about about Android API woes. Circles will provide them with a way to choose, and choice is something which is almost universally lauded.