Unless you live under a rock, you know that Google+ is now, finally, a real thing. The mysterious social network that Google has been working on for what seems like eons actually does exist. Here I’ll cover some quick basics and potential issues, but more importantly the big question: Is it better than Facebook?

Google is no stranger to social networks. For the uninitiated, look up Orkut, Wave and Buzz for more information. Heck even Latitude could be lumped in to some degree. They’ve explored the idea of creating a social network themselves but haven’t been all that successful in the United States.

Given their past social networking stumbles and the current traction behind Facebook, it’s fair to say Google is in a must-win scenario. They’re pulling out the big guns with Google+ and can’t afford to fail. Whereas ‘search’ was prime 10 years ago, ‘social’ is the wild boar everyone wants to lasso today. Google needs to start chipping away and making their dent in Facebook while they still can. At least… that’s what I imagine the sentiment was in the board room that hatched the idea for Google+. More on that later.

Google+ is comprised of some new ideas and some re-interpretations of old ideas, all wrapped up in a sleek new package. You’ll notice visual overhauls in across the Google product line to match Google+ so that should indicate how important this is to them. Think of this as the launch of Google 2.0. The core features are Circles, Sparks and Huddles. Check their page out for a quick rundown… they aren’t complicated concepts but they’re a bit different that how Facebook handles things. It lends to a different experience.

Your experience on a social network is completely dependent on your audience.

The nature of a social network is to collect content and filter through a context. Content + Context. It’s about what you interact with and how you interact with it. My Facebook is not your Facebook. Ashton Kutcher’s Twitter is not your twitter. Your Google+ is nobody else’s. When people talk about how much they like or dislike a social network, their opinion is often as much about the people in the network as it is the social network itself. People are the key here and one of the big differentiators between Facebook and Google+

Facebook started small. Google+ is starting big.

Facebook started on a few campuses. They got the students using the site, then they expended to other schools. Rinse and repeat. Once they had critical mass, they opened the floodgates. People went to the site, saw their friends, and jumped onboard. They never had a point where the world was looking at their shiny box… which happened to be empty.

Google can limit their invites all they want, and they are thankfully, but the public awareness of Google+ is massive right out of the gate. Oprah would probably have mentioned it today had she been on the air still and wasn’t busy giving away cars. The problem here is people want to see Google+ but they want to see it full with all their friends and running smoothly. They don’t have the patience to wait. It’s like if you sent the photographer around to take party pictures 30 minutes before the party starts. Nobody is there yet and now everyone is going to know it.

Without the content from your friends… the context doesn’t really matter.

If they do get the numbers they need, the answer may start to flesh itself out. Unfortunately until then it’s not better than Facebook or even as good. It can’t be because it’s missing half of what makes a social network. The people. “If you build it they will come” only works in the movies.