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." '"

Comments

Nothing Deplorable about Betas

[Knight Thrasher]

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.

Re:Nothing Deplorable about Betas

[mmkkbb]

The acceptance of 'beta' as 'final' by many consumers is a programmer's dream. The need for a product is diminished, as consumers will forgive anything from lack of polish to lack of functionality and lack of coherence. All those things you're too lazy to fix can be swept away since it's still in beta!

Re:Nothing Deplorable about Betas

[Threni]

> I hate having six different entries in "Add/Remove Programs" for a single
> program.

I had that with Firefox. I deleted the oldest version and it deleted all of them. Uh...thanks.

Also, I had 2 dummy labels in Gmail which I can't delete - it just ignores me, as does Google support.

Frankly, standards are so low these days (software and hardware) that it's hardly necessary to stick a beta warning - I don't expect stuff to work, and I expect to have to explain what's wrong to clueless idiots in shops when I take the stuff back. Fortunately, they're so used to it too that it's rarely hard to get your money back - they know you're going to have to just take your chances with another one anyway, so why worry about it?

maybe...

[JavaLord]

why 'beta' lasts so long these days

Because companies are being more realistic with project life cycles?

Beta = safety

[mbelly]

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

Released products are flawed and inadequate

[sterno]

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.

The software...

[wpiman]

mentioned in the article is free- both MS anti-spyware and Google News. I think this is a little bit different if it is a product you pay for. Many people had problems recently with Civilization IV and the XBOX 360. Being paying customers- these people have been heard screaming in various message boards.

Drug companies do beta test their drugs. Usually- they pay the recipient to take them.

The point is- you get what you pay for.

What about ICQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google News

[winkydink]

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.

Re:Google News

[damiam]

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.

Do Google Betas Put Customers At Risk?

[miller60]

When Google Base was launched, it included cross-site scripting vulnerabilities that could have allowed an attacker to steal cookies and other information from users - which is no small matter now that Google has consolidated services such as AdWords and AdSense under a single login. The flaw was discovered by UK security researcher Jim Ley, who also found security holes in the Yahoo Maps beta and argues that betas are often unveiled without adequate security testing.

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.

As long as programmers hear us...

[Spy der Mann]

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.

OSS essentially beta - not a troll

[ServerIrv]

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.

Re:Coke of all businesses should know better.

[tm2b]

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.