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.
seriously, why wouldn't you do this with dedicated gamers AND still charge them money for the xbox?
why 'beta' lasts so long these days
Because companies are being more realistic with project life cycles?
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
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
Alphas have to work too hard, plus they have to think too hard all the time. They don't get to laugh and play. And Gammas and Deltas wear those ugly jumpsuits. I'm so glad I'm a Beta! Aren't you glad you're a Beta, too?
Well, there is nothing wrong with Betas, except if their is no real intention of a production/stable release in a reasonable timeframe. Something in Beta for three years should raise questions. The implication is tha by tagging something as Beta, software/service suppliers can absolve themselves of responsibility for defects. This is sort of like an even further erosion of the standard EULA weaknesses regarding bugs and defects. Software that is in Beta indefinitely should be called "abandoned".
How's that Windows XP beta been going? The OS X beta I've been involved with has been pretty good. We're up to 10.4.3b, and I'm confident we'll see an RC before the 10.5 beta comes out. =)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Drug companies do beta test their drugs. Usually- they pay the recipient to take them.
The point is- you get what you pay for.
Because most programmers are male, and most male programmers have a fear of commit.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
"I'd appreciate it if you could report any placement-related or other bugs."
Well, you seem to have placed it in the middle of the page instead of the top.
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.
I remember reading an article on Wired a long time ago about why Google News will forever be beta: it's all about money and copyrights. As long as it is beta, Google can claim it makes no profit from Google News. As soon as it gets "released," though, every newspaper with a lawyer will try to shut it down.
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
That's the truth. My company QA's our software but in new routines (moderatly complex) we were having bugs that wouldn't be triggered for months. To eliminate the confusion of our customers on our new product features all new modules/reports/etc... come out as beta for at least the first month. It's the "take it with a grain of salt" model. I've found our customers like accessing new features (especially the ones they specifically request) earlier and have significantly less anger when a small glitch appears. Programers aren't perfect and end-user design docs are almost impossible to get 100% correct. Beta is a happy medium that should not be abused. That being said Google abuses the shit out of it. However, when you don't pay a dime for their services, can you really complain? (The answer is yes, with very little affect.)
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
Well sometimes it is so they don't get sued. Google News has been in beta for 4 years, and the consensus is that it will stay that way for years to come.
From this article:
"The reason: The minute Google News runs paid advertising of any sort it could face a torrent of cease-and-desist letters from the legal departments of newspapers, which would argue that "fair use" doesn't cover lifting headlines and lead paragraphs verbatim from their articles. Other publishers might simply block users originating from Google News, effectively snuffing it out. "
- Superior picture quality and signal-to-noise vs. VHS
- Widespread adoption by studios and professionals (Beta SP)
- Convenient smaller-sized cassette
- Mfr'd and licensed by Sony, a company known for their progressive stance regarding consumer rights.
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.
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
Whatever bad things you might say about proprietary software, one good thing in terms of reliability is that it's typically statically linked. That means someone who sells a proprietary app can test with a particular version of a library, and then just keep on shipping the app with that version linked in. If a later version of the library comes along that they do want to switch to, they can test it carefully, and then roll it out. But as an OSS programmer, you're at the mercy of your users -- they could install any version of a library, and if it doesn't work right, they consider it to be your fault.
Find free books.