What do you do if you want to share something (eg pictures) to a certain group of people (eg everyone who attended your wedding) and also give everyone else in this group the possibility to post new things (eg additional pictures) to everyone else in this group without adding every single person? You can't do that with circles (yet) but facebook groups are perfect for that.

Another usecase would be the "epic bro" circle Google used in one of the Google+ commercials. Why should I and everyone of my "epic bros" create the same circle separately?

Google Circles and Facebook Lists are the same feature.

Facebook groups are different. I only mention it because a lot of people seem confused (Lots thinking Fb Lists and Fb groups are interchangeable).

Agreed, but I'm not sure if groups are in the end much more important / better solution for what people want when sharing with a limited number of friends.

I agree with this. The key differentiator in my mind is that categorizing my friends in Circles is, Hell, almost fun. I can easily drag someone to multiple circles, or drag multiples of people into a circle, or drag multiples of people into multiple circles.

The user experience on it is just great. Yes, Facebook sort of has this functionality, but it isn't anywhere remotely close to being as usable as Circles is out of the box.

and those who use Google search number approximately 6 billion compared to FB of 750million

In fact, Google hit 1 billion monthly uniques for the first time in May: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/06/21/google-notches-one-bi...

Not every person on earth uses Google. There are still continents where the major concern for most people is living past 30. The Internet is not even on their radar.

I take it you don't travel much. You need to go to very small, very poor and extremely remote villages before you find no internet connections or people who are aware of computers. I have found a grand total of one, ever. I've visited unpowered, tribal villages of people who had no obvious access to western goods (no modern synthetic clothes, limited plastic, only a couple of steel items) but still knew what a computer programmer was when I told them my occupation. The world is remarkably modern and globalised now so try to update your previous century's vision of it.

So you're saying these people use Google? Because that's what my post is referencing.

Which continents? I wouldn't have asked had you used a singular term.

I'm puzzled by the downvote... There is plenty of granularity within every country, let alone every continent. But even allowing some rough generalizations, [1] shows that Africa is the only firm candidate for such an assertion.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec...

He's exaggerating. Even in Africa most countries have a life expectancy over 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_Expectancy_2011_Estim...), at least according to the CIA World Factbook. Even then in most African countries life expectancy averages are cut short because the high number of HIV infections.

OP had a good point though, not everyone in the world uses Google, and not even all of the 2 billion internet users use Google.

Antarctica is the obvious one.. I'd guess Africa is the other.

If anything Africa is the closest to being obvious. Antartica doesn't qualify, as it has no permanent population [1]. Even if it did, its non-permanent population is so many orders of magnitude behind the rest [2] that its inclusion in the original term 'continents' would be clearly misleading.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_populatio...

A search user will not automatically translate into a google+ user. The question is how many unique gmail/picasa/blogger users does google have?

Don't forget the equally important question: how many Android phones will be sold? It's hard to buy an Android phone and not get sucked into the Google ecosystem - and I assume Plus will become a big part of that.