It seems as easy to use as all of the other POVs and it still puts the reader into the story, even more so than first person.
I don't think it does put the reader into the story. The minute you say something about "you" that isn't true, you've broken the reader's trance. It's really hard to maintain the trance in second person. And (perhaps partly because second person is so unusual) it takes more time and more skill to induce the reader's trance.
When I read first person, the author always has a few extra hurdles to leap, a few extra questions to answer: Who is the narrator telling the story to? Why is the narrator telling this story? (I have a hunch that it's mostly we fellow writers who demand answers to those questions, but still.)
Second person imposes the same hurdles plus a few others: Who is narrating? Why is the narrator addressing me personally? Why would
I be in this story? Wait a minute... is the narrator addressing
me or some other person? In any case, why is the narrator telling the story to the main character as if the main character wasn't there? Or is the use of second person really a dissociated form of first person, the way you see in interviews of, say, sports stars: "You know, you play your best game; sometimes you win, sometimes you lose."
When I read second person, these hurdles
always get in my way. Sometimes (rarely) I can get past them to the story.
Dennis Lehane had a second-person story ("Until Gwen", maybe?) in his book
Coronado. In the end, I liked the story, but the second-person POV definitely got in my way, and I can't see that it added anything worth the trouble.
Dale