In my experience, the cases when friend (or mutable, which is a little similar) to actually enhance encapsulation of data are rare compared with how often it's used to break encapsulation.
It's rarely useful to me but when I do use it it's for cases in which I've had to split a class that was formerly a single class into two separate classes that need to access some common data/functionality.
Edit to respond to Outlaw Programmer's comment: We absolutely agree on this. One other option apart from friend'ing classes after splitting them is to make public accessors, which sometimes break encapsulation! I think that some people think that friendly classes somehow breaks encapsulation because they've seen it used improperly a lot, and many people probably never see code where it's been used correctly, because it's a rare thing. I like your way of stating it though - friendliness is a good middle ground between not allowing you to split up your class and making EVERYTHING accessible to the public.
Edit to respond to David Thornley: I agree that the flexibility that C++ allows you to do things like this is a result of the design decisions that went into C++. I think that's what it makes it even more important to understand what things are generally good and bad style in flexible languages. Java's perspective is that you should never have friend classes so that these aren't provided, but as C++ programmers it's our responsibility as a community to define appropriate use of these very flexible but sometimes misused language constructs.
Edit to respond to Tom: Mutable doesn't necessarily break encapsulation, but many of the uses of the mutable keyword that I've seen in real-life situations break encapsulation, because it's much more common to see people breaking encapsulation with mutable than to actually find and understand a proper use of mutable in the first place.
