Slashdot Mirror
Why Does Beta Last So Long?
Carl Bialik writes "Noting that Google News has been labeled 'beta' for nearly three years, and Microsoft's antispyware program for nearly a year, the Wall Street Journal looks at why 'beta' lasts so long these days. The article mentions the usefulness of getting the masses to test the product, but also notices another possible reason: 'Betas also have become a marketing device in a fiercely competitive industry, allowing software and Internet firms to release new products or services sooner and cultivate early buzz. Betas, which once had been quietly distributed, are trumpeted in press releases and at news conferences. "I deplore it as a consumer; I admire it as a marketing professional," said Peter Sealey, a marketing professor at the University of California at Berkeley and former chief marketing officer at Coca-Cola Co. "I can't come up with anything else in the entire marketing world where marketers knowingly introduce a flawed or inadequate product [and] it helps grow your user base." '"
The reason people like products released as Betas, is because it's the most honest software companies ever get about their products. It's pretty much as simple as that; Beta implies under-constant-improvement, and even I as a consumer don't mind imperfect software, as long as the company will at least advise me it's been released in Beta - under construction.
It allows for the company to release the product and have it utilized by the public, but if something were to break, they still have the cruch of "well, it is in beta" to fall back on.
why 'beta' lasts so long these days
Because companies are being more realistic with project life cycles?
"I can't come up with anything else in the entire marketing world where marketers knowingly introduce a flawed or inadequate product [and] it helps grow your user base." Doesn't this describe the computer industry in general?
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
If a product is labelled as beta, and they have to completely overhaul it or a severe security flaw is found. Any 'damages' can be shrugged off as "This was only a beta, use at your own risk".
~Matt
~Belly
We thought we would finish this sooner... but we didn't.
Eventually we kind of gave up trying, but we're too nice to just take it off the website?
Who would have thought?
Or... my personal favorite:
"Beta" as a kludge to workaround users who don't read disclaimers and get hopping mad when things don't work. I swear that accounts for a big percentage of the people who do this.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
The thing is, most software that we get is flawed and inadequate in some respect. Labeling the software as being beta reduces people's expectations. Thus when there is a serious flaw, the customer doesn't feel that irritated with it because it was beta. If it was a released official product, then they might have more room to criticize.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Drug companies do beta test their drugs. Usually- they pay the recipient to take them.
The point is- you get what you pay for.
It's been in beta for nearly 10 years ;)
Part of the reason is that they can reserve the option of making it non-beta in the future and charge for it.
Betas are indeed helpful to consumers. It allows them to get an early look at a product and guide its final look and feel and feature set. This allows the company to develop a better product and consumers get a product that more suits there needs.
While it's true that using beta software is not for everyone, there are many users who do and make this symbiotic relationship worthwhile. As a software developer for enterprise customers, I see this play out with great success all the time.
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
Any good forensic accountant can determine whether or not Google is generating a profit from Google News. The term "beta" provides no legal protection in that regard.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Google's obviously not turning a profit now because there're no ads. Google doesn't want to officially "release" Google News until they've figured out how to make it profitable without legal problems. That's the problem.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
As for Google News, one reason it remains in beta is that it has no business model. If Google tries to put ads on Google News, the newspapers and magazines whose stories are listed on Google News would probably file lawsuits, alleging that Google is trying to profit from their content. Google's emergence is a threat to the major media outlets that represent much of the content on Google News, and some folks in the news business believe it will remain in beta untilthis problem is settled.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
"I can't come up with anything else in the entire marketing world where marketers knowingly introduce a flawed or inadequate product [and] it helps grow your user base."
Talk about silly nonsense. In previous marketing terminology, this was called "last year's model." Marketers have ALWAYS used product improvements as a basis for selling essentially the same product again. My '06 Honda Odyssey has newfangled headlamps. Big whoop. Was the previous model "inadequate" because it had a different type?
Beta is simply about calling something "free but use at your own risk." It's better for software companies than releasing Version 1.0 for free, because you can NEVER go back to charging for it once you do that. Ask Netscape.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Being a programmer, I like participating in my favorite products' forums. Like, I report a bug, and a couple of days later, it's "fixed in CVS". I only have to recompile, and voila.
Anyway, one thing that is very needed, is the frequent release of products (release early, release often), which is why I love looking at the latest beta's of a product.
However, what I wouldn't like, is having to widthstand an awful beta full of bugs, specially if i can't contact the programmer.
And it's even more frustrating if said "beta" is actually a finished product, like this one or this one.
Haven't you guys been frustrated by the stupid MSN window re-scrolling whenever your buddy types something and you haven't finished reading what you missed? It's a nightmare!
This is why I like beta. At least I expect bugs to be present, and I'm ASSURED that, since it's beta, those bugs will be fixed soon.
And beta is also where the newest features are implemented, and I can say "wow! you rock!" I think Beta is the best part of a software development.
So, it depends. Beta, for open source products, is a dream come true. For closed source products, it's a nightmare.
Well... aside from marketing reasons and the like, Beta periods are longer these days because the software is typically more complex as well. You'd like a good beta audience to test your code breadth-wise and depth-wise, which may be difficult given some products (think about Microsoft Office and all the features and combinations of features you'd want tested).
Plus, there's always getting your product out in Beta form to let some air out of competitors' offerings. If you can get your game out in a pretty good beta, for instance, you might curb some of the fever for some other competing game has. Just look at the EQ2 and WoW Beta and release times, they were fighting who would release first to get a lot of initial sales.
Their "BETA" reminds me of the early 90's where you came across sites with the damn "Under Construction" animated GIFs everywhere. All these new web-app betas are nothing more than the new "under construction" signs.
The premise behind a beta is to get the product into the customer's hands to increase the number of testers to improve the product. The OSS model of development uses this as a framework. Although versions are released as "final", it is understood that it can and will be changed quickly if any problems arise. I personally have gotten into several OSS while they where beta and still use them now.
I do find it frustrating when paid-for services are in perpetual beta. If a OSS is broke, I haven't paid anyone any money, and I "could" fix it myself if I wanted.
That's simply not true for technological products.
The first to market is usually not the victor. From PDAs to OSes to MP3 players, it's easy to see that in the consumer technology market, the "first mover advantage" is mythical. It usually takes a second company to come along and learn from the mistakes of the first in order for a new technology segment to take off.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
why would these online publications ever want google to quit freely advertising their products. their ad revenue would be related to that of google news'. google news is a value-adding party, not a competitor. any leagal action would be out of spite that google makes any money off of someone else's publication.
i'm sure this will get shot down, but ever since the google portal came about, i'd think that slashdot has been getting a good amount more traffic than before. hell, anything from the google portal is a free click anyway.
Look at google news closely. The articles are 90%+ AP, UPI and are the *same exact stories* from a thousand little places, either directly or a step away, albeit some have a word or three changed from the original copy. Whoopedy forking zinggy do there. That's the dirty little secret of newspapers and MSM broadcast "news" today, it's repacked crap they pull off the wires.. Google could just pop for a subscription to those two sources and be their own online newspaper legitimately, yahoo apparently does it already.
Google is just being cheap, and the critics are being ignorant and naieve, and the content owners would be hard pressed to try and counter current US copyright fair use provisions given Google offers an extremely small piece of the content, and gives exact reference and credit.
It's a manufactured non issue. Why? I don't know, but it sure is. In googles case I think it's so they can claim "thousands of news sources crawled by de minute!!1BBQ 11". Whoop! It's a few dozen really at best.
I think the funniest one is online newsrag A makes you REGISTER to go see the SAME AP or UPI crap you can get elsewhere without registering. Why would I want to "register" when the only thing I can't access at newsrag A is the pathetic local high school soccer scores and similar?
Big fat jokeski