Slashdot Mirror
Has Google Redefined Beta?
netbuzz writes "Someone finally took the time to do a count of all the Google apps marked 'beta.' And with fully 45% of its products carrying that familiar tag — including 4-year-old Gmail — Google says there's an explanation: Beta doesn't mean to them what it has long meant to the rest of the tech community. 'We believe beta has a different meaning when applied to applications on the Web,' says a company spokesman."
What are we going to call actual beta web software then? Alpha? But then what would we call Alpha software?
I mean, just because you're still adding features to it, doesn't mean that it has to be called beta, does it?
Also, what I quite don't understand is why they would want to call it beta, I mean, it's not like it's got a good cling to it. It just makes it sound like something unstable and unreliable. Google are tryint o get people to buy the premium version of Gmail. Why would someone want to pay for beta-testing something for someone?
--
Champagne should be cold, dry and free.
Alpha: it doesn't work.
Beta: it still doesn't work.
I rather like that :-)
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
but their spokesperson sure knows what bullshit means.
That's a load of BS. Those fat asses are just lazy to carry the responsibility.
So, by that logic, every piece of software that can be updated is beta. Windows, Linux, OSX, etc.
I guess it gives them an excuse if their shit don't work.
I think that it's less that Google have redefined Beta, but that they've bought it back to what it SHOULD be- usable and feature-complete software which is just undergoing stringent testing for subtle defects and bugs.
Frankly, this makes for a refreshing change from the rest of the software industry (particularly Microsoft) who hold the opinion that Beta is Greek for "Great- ship it and patch it up later."
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Can we just tag this "yes" and move on?
Beta means "it may change without warning". With traditional apps you have a choice to upgrade or not, but not with web applications. As long as there is active development then it is essentially a beta. Maybe they should have used a different term, but I think it is useful to have a warning that there may be frequent and substantial changes.
I seem to recall that Stavro Muller intentionally added the Beta label to one of his own restaurants, with catastrophic results.
What a load of BS. Its a matter of liability. By saying that the products are still in 'Beta' they have a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card if there are any problems. Its odd that the G1 phone is tied to using services that are still labelled as beta.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
Microsoft redefined "release" to be what we previously called "beta", a long time ago. That's why "Google's 'beta' products like Gmail and Google Docs are about as good as anyone would expect" -- we've been brought to expect software and services which are barely tested. Google is returning to the old meaning and perhaps going a bit further.
I think it just means that we will not give you an official SLA, nor any guarantees. basically our only assurance that these things work is Google's name and their reluctance to get embarrassed. And I'm OK with that.
They've redefined the word "beta." Have they also redefined the word "evil?" "Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. Really. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, it's not like you're going to use Windows Live Search. Muwaahahahaha! I'm sorry, that's my 'spreading good cheer' laugh. Really."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Christ, game companies have been using 'beta' as a dodge for shitty demos since Shiny squeezed Messiah out. The fact that the same 'it's just a beta, it'll get better!' promises and pleas have trickled upward and outward is clear indication that gravity itself is in beta, because shit certainly doesn't just flow downhill any more.
Several companies used "beta" to indicate that product is just not supported. For instance ICQ was beta for like 4-5 years? Don't remember exactly.
So nothing new here actually.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
they've bought it back to what it SHOULD be
No, they haven't.
usable and feature-complete software which is just undergoing stringent testing for subtle defects and bugs
You missed the last part of that, which reads by a limited number of testers.
If an app is delivered to end users, then it's not beta.
I can also see this in court - "Your honor, we didn't reverse engineer functionality {blah} - our system is still in beta. We were planning to implement {blah} all along. We didn't steal the idea from so-and-so."
Do no evil? Hmmm . . . how 'bout "Free the beast". Has anybody here looked at the price of Google stock lately? I use their tools regularly (frankly, I'm glad as hell that Google exists), but I don't fool myself. They're definitely in it for the money. Then again, so am I.
Just look what Clinton (Bill) did for the word "sex".
In 3....2.....1......
Website Hosting
Modern software engineering *everywhere* has redefined "beta"... which is why "software engineering" exists only at NASA and a few other such places.
The rest of software "engineers" throw half-ready rubbish over the wall to meet idiotic management's "vision" and "development schedule" and pray that someone else's job will go to India when the self-serving suits at the top decide to go for big bonuses by slashing the payroll.
On the other hand, evolution itself is constant beta, with losers and winners, periodically re-set by catastrophic terrestrial events that wipe out all lawyers.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
So... what's an open beta then?
Gmail *was* a closed beta, but they opened it up a while back
All I can say is that we're out of beta: we're releasing on time.
To me, beta means that you can use the software, but don't expect it to be "stable", either for crashes or changing. If a project is in "beta" for 4 years, something is wrong, either with the project or, in the case of gmail, with their definition of "beta".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I like the spokepersons answer, as it lines up nicely with the nature of the company's employees.
Not to pass judgement, but their overwhelmingly elitist and extremely confident - realistically, that's not a value statement.
Overclockers
Seriously. With beta software, they don't have to devote near the level of technical support staff that they would a "full" shipping product. Also, they're more protected in case data is lost/damaged/leaked (who runs their business off "beta" software?)
Also, they tap into the tinker mentality most people have with betas. So they get a lot more usage and feedback from people than they would with a "shipping" product where people would simply bitch about bugs.
So.
Saves money.
Covers their asses legally in case it's messed up.
Tends to get better feedback.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
While we wait, if any of you should have a theory of your own, please share with the group.
My theory is that by always having 'beta' next to something, this ensures that anyone who uses their tools will always think they are using the latest and greatest.
Or, maybe they want to remind people of a fish, that swims alone from the crowd with a brilliant display of features.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
/. beta
Sounds like a bit of ego to me. This "we're Google and we can do things our way" mentality is fine within the company, but outwardly calling something beta has certain connotation to us average computer users. Sure, we joke about it, but it's just plain stupid to be honest. GMail isn't in beta, it's used daily by over a million people.
I'm no attorney, but perhaps Google figures that if they treat these products as "experimental" in some way they will have a chance at mitigating the one year timer on obtaining a patent after public use?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_use
Much as I like, and rely upon, GMail, you can't say that it's yet really production/release (i.e. out of Beta) quality, and in fact in the last few weeks it's taken a turn for the worse.
The functionality seems bug free, but the deployment/availablility still seems to have issues. I'm used to the occasional GMail service outages which don't last very long, but a new thing from the last few weeks is that almost every operation you do on GMail results in a (paraphrasing) "temporary failure/unavailable - try again in a few seconds" error with the operation then succeeding on the second attempt. I get the impression they've enabled some super-aggressive session/cache timeout maybe to help scalability.
You missed the last part of that, which reads by a limited number of testers.
If an app is delivered to end users, then it's not beta.
Says who? Are we going to complain about Mozilla's definition of beta too then?
Microsoft redefined "release" to be what we previously called "beta", a long time ago.
I don't mean to sound like another Apple fanboi, but Apple was doing that long before MS. I think Apple may have borrowed the idea from IBM or Xerox.
-- Snake inspects his haul
Oh no! Beta!
I want to be retired when I grow up.
that depends on your definition of "limited number" :)
An application (being it web or traditional) can be in BETA status because of a temporary, not yet finished or even absent EULA.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.
--- Humpty Dumpty
...aside from toying on occasion with new features, but don't want you to think they have to fix anything that is 'wrong' with it, because it's "beta" software and supposed to have those 'flaws.' Standard Google distortion of reality field, release several new 'products' a year, don't actually finish any of them because they're only used to draw attention to Google's search.
I'm sure it must be quite enjoyable to work there as a software engineer, but I wonder if they realize on a conscious level that the company doesn't care if you make something useful - they just want you to make something popular, like Google Earth. Talk about something that a company like Google could turn into an incredible product, but no, it's mostly a toy with some people using it to augment their needs on occasion (e.g. NASA.)
Loading...
That is all.
Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
I thinkg Google is using Beta just because it sounds cool. Sure Google has high standards, but if a multibillion dollar company with thousands of engineers and years of man hours can't finish say an email app, who can? They'll probably stop using it once another company starts using and it's no longer fashionable.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya, Princess Bride
Neil Cherry - Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
BETA!
They're just having flashbacks to the 80's and the video cassette format wars.
Beta = better.
google could redefine a cucumber as a small nocturnal mammal, and the whole world would fall in line. google search is all of our collective recall. it's the 800 pound gorilla of the web. it can make any word mean anything they want it to
call it a "google mind trick"
World: Let us see Gmail move out of beta.
Google: [with a small tweak of the spider] You don't need to see Gmail move out of beta.
World: We don't need to Gmail move out of beta.
Google: Beta does not have the meaning you think it has.
World: Beta does not have the meaning I think it has.
Google: You believe beta has a different meaning when applied to applications on the Web.
World: I believe beta has a different meaning when applied to applications on the Web.
Gmail: Move along.
World: Move along... move along.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
gmail.
And they have redefined 'no evil' too.
"Beta" is software that you don't take any responsibility for. Thus you can't charge anything for it either. Emails disappearing from a beta email system is bad marketing, but it is use-at-your-own-risk software.
Since google doesn't charge users anything for using their applications, they have no reason to remove the word beta from them. Thus they can make zillions on ads, and not really promise anything regarding uptime, data integrity and such.
We believe beta has a different meaning when applied to applications on the Web, where people expect continual improvements in a product. On the Web, you don't have to wait for the next version to be on the shelf or an update to become available. Improvements are rolled out as they're developed. Rather than the packaged, stagnant software of decades past, we're moving to a world of regular updates and constant feature refinement where applications live in the cloud.
So what they're saying is that all web services are beta by default. So the only time something comes out of beta is when it's no longer being developed? That's the most fucking stupid thing I've seen in a while.
Look at all the FLOSS projects that have been in perpetual BETA.
Look at the projects have version numbers like "0.34.65".
It used to be when a project hit final release it's version number hit "1.0". But, one can find "stable" distributions that are loaded with "0.x" version software. And, those same projects never seem to close in on a version 1.0 final release. They just keep adding features and incrementing the minor numbers.
Why is it so hard for projects to set a feature list and performance goal to be considered 1.0, reach it, go from beta to gold, change to 1.0?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Then perhaps, someone should tell them, "I do not think that word means what you think it does."
I don't think that it's Google that is wrong, everyone else is.
They admit their software is shonky load of old arse - hence the beta tag.
How often have you bought a piece of supposedly "finished" software only to find out it is absolute dreck? It's the companies that sell those bits of beta software as if they are proper products that deserve our scorn, rather than Google who are trying to be honest about what they are distributing.
They have redefined beta for marketing purposes. By making things like Gmail invitation only, it passes itself around by word of mouth much quicker. "I have a Gmail beta invite if anyone wants one" even beta invites on sale at ebay. And that isn't just for closed betas. People hear beta, and they think they are on the leading edge of technology, so they jump in. I can't blame them for the move, as I would do the same if I were in their position. In fact, a an app I am working on will be released in the same manner
So, will Android be a Beta phone?
Any program significantly longer than 4 simple lines of code is in Beta and always will be.
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
Google just doesn't know what beta means. Nobody is using their flawed concept for beta, they're the only ones. Beta is actually - and has always been, from the start- their way of saying "without any kind of warranty".
The reply from Google posted in the article says "We believe beta has a different meaning" and then just meanders off into a load of PR waffle about customer expectations and doesn't even try to explain what this alternative meaning of beta is. I am still none the wiser about why Gmail is still in beta, despite the fact that it is a stable, commercially operated, publicly available service.
Google should just use the tried-and-true "Under Construction" animated gif instead. Blinking text is a plus.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
BETA for Google means it is still "free", just wait for the cloud computing other-foot to fall
Humpty Dumpty was a canon. You know, the kind that fires canon balls.
It works, it finally WORKS! The label: Discontinued.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The founders looked like slobs at the Android roll-out yesterday. Steve Jobs also dresses informally, yet manages to look classy. Cant play grad-students forever, boys.
usable and feature-complete software which is just undergoing stringent testing for subtle defects and bugs
You missed the last part of that, which reads by a limited number of testers.
If an app is delivered to end users, then it's not beta.
Copyright may be granted for "limited times" according to the US Constitution, which SCOTUS has interpreted as being any finite period specified by Federal legislation.
Strictly speaking, the entire human population would constitute a limited number of testers.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
So... what's an open beta then?
It's a buzzword that was created by marketing.
No. You are simply wrong. Beta can be a limited number of testers or it can be an open Beta where an unlimited number of people can use it. Beta, in the way that google has used it, seems to allow them to pull the plug at any time for any reason. Nowhere does 'beta' mean that it has to be a limited number of users. What it can mean is that there isn't much you can do about it if they decide they need to pull the plug on it for one reason or another.
Does this mean that, possibly at some point in the future, Google will sit on a wall, then have a great fall, and all Bush's taxpayer money and all Bush's men won't be able to put Google back together again?
'If an app is delivered to end users, then it's not beta.'
Then it must still be beta cause it 'may' have not been delivered to the end user yet.
I mean everyone know the people is not the end users of google, advertisers are...
Google spokesman
I have to say, I tend to agree. An application that is actually used online, rather then downloaded and used on the desktop, is much easier to apply micro-updates to. Users don't have to downlaod new files, they just use the site as normal and it might look slightly different.
In fact, google not only micro-update their site on a per-feature basis, they can update it on a per-user basis and test different layouts/functionality across different demographics. So, infact The google I see can be different from yours and different from the last time I logged in. I have noticed this recently with google docs.
I have to say, I much prefer a logo that says "Google beta" than "Google 0.95.275.367265.A1X".
America, Home of the Brave.
And we all know how that worked out!
"Marxism has now confirmed: Capitalism is dying"
You woulda got modded funny if you left it at that...well, at least by me...
"We believe beta has a different meaning when applied to applications on the Web," says a company spokesman."
Others believe beta has no meaning at all when applied to applications on Google.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
In a desktop application, you get it as is, you could unplug it from internet and keep it that way, wont change by itself, newer versions are entirely new releases that you could choose to upgrade or not. Calling it beta or not mean that the developer say that you can trust it or not, as far as he knows. In that acception, Chrome IS beta, and when they think it is stable enough will be version 1.0 (this year or early next, not in 3-4 years).
In the other hand, while we see the web side of gmail as something that dont change a lot in the time and looks like working all ok, behind it could be heavy development still and changes. The nice face that the site shows to visitors could still be pretty rough on their side. Maybe their definition of beta goes around "this month we kept doing heavy changes on it".
That, or the real April 1st Joke they did when released it was that the full name of the app wasnt "GMail" but "GMail Beta", and that beta dont mean code quality, just a surname.
Says who?
Says everybody who knows what the term means.
Are we going to complain about Mozilla's definition of beta too then?
Yes, if they're using the term incorrectly.
According to original definition (before marketing co-opted it), beta testing is a testing phase, wherein the product is shipped to *testers*, not end users. The testers report back to the developers any bugs they find, so that the bugs can be fixed before release.
You can read more about it here.
Here's a perfect example of why Google's stuff is not beta:
When Google Earth "beta" was released for Linux, I downloaded it. I played around with it, and in doing so, discovered some bugs. I documented them, made sure they were repeatable, and went to give this to Google so they could fix it.
Except there was no way to do that.
There was no bugzilla for the project. There was no email address to report bugs to, there was *nothing*.
This was not beta in the original sense of the word (which is what Sasayaki said it was.) This was just buggy software.
No. You are simply wrong.
<sarcasm>
Wow - you've convinced me! Your argument, complete with all of your citations and background has proven me wrong!
</sarcasm>
Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the term before you embarrass yourself like that.
"Open beta" is a marketing buzzword. It has no definition in the real testing cycle.
does anyone have a Gmail invite?
thanks
With "beta", the company also announces "this may be an unstable POS". The user is warned of course, but at the same time this will drive away those users who expect mature and stable applications.
With a free application, I don't actually mind. At worst, I lose a bit of time trying it out.
In some cases, companies think they can get away with it and still charge money. Microsoft for instance has occasionally tried charging money for beta software. I've avoided those both on principle and because I strongly suspected they were in a state I'd call "alpha" ;-)
C - the footgun of programming languages
Not to mention the bullshit they pulled with iGoogle hope pages and FORCE feeding their latest beta to users who didnt want it and HATE the new format and giving them no way to remove it or opt out. For those not in the know it forced the blasted tabs on the side producing a gap similar to Gmail on the left side and its utterly ugly and a huge waste of real estate.
Sick of stupidity? http://www.patentlystupid.com
Developers release either a closed beta or an open beta; closed beta versions are released to a select group of individuals for a user test, while open betas are to a larger community group, usually the general public. The testers report any bugs that they found and sometimes minor features they would like to see in the final version.
Nice use of mml. Moron Mark-up Language. pffft.
Many people today are confused about what beta means, due to Microsoft releasing public betas, MMOs going through open betas, etc. Here's what I was taught way back when:
Alpha testing was structured testing. It was often white-box testing of very specific features and systems done by internal testers. In usability tests, it meant that you pretty much told the users what to do and observed whether they had problems with it.
Beta testing was unstructured testing. It was often black-box testing of the entire program, done by people not very familiar with it. Basically, you get a bunch of monkeys to bang on your code. In usability tests, it meant that you got people in off the street and had them play with the program to do whatever.
I say "was" because these days most companies treat alpha and beta as just progress towards a release without a clear meaning for either.
Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
Master: Well, yes and no.
"We have very high internal metrics our consumer products have to meet before coming out of beta. Our teams continue to work to improve these products and provide users with an even better experience."
What a pile of bullshit. You have "very high internal metrics".. ones that allow a product like gmail to not be up to your high metrics yet. What is the goal, staying in beta as long as possible?
This kind of answer is just stupid, is beta the new version system. Everything is beta until you discontinue the product then its out of beta?
ICQ is a great example, i used that thing for 10 years in beta. The difference was it is a peice of crap that barely worked and changed so much. Gmail is stable, functionality wise its barely changed in years. Google, shit or get off the pot.
They've just figured out how to monetize it.
They're using the classic idea of beta - free, use at your own risk, subject to change without notice. And they slapped advertising on it (quick, an obvious idea, call the patent office!). And they've achieved a great deal of attention for innovation and growth as a result.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
What's google?
Beta, Alpha, Bla, Bla, Bla! Old terms for old software (when software was "deployed" on floppies). Web apps should always be in a state of change, they are alive!
0100111001100101011100100110010000100001
The testing is limited to humans. Once Google is done with it they will allow anyone from this galaxy to sign up for Gmail.
They said it all in an April Fools joke a few years ago. The following is verbatim from http://www.google.com/googlegulp/faq.html Man, if you pressure us, you just drive us away. We'll commit when we're ready, okay? Besides, what's so great about taking things out of beta? It ruins all the romance, the challenge, the possibilities, the right to explore. Carpe diem, ya know? Maybe we're jaded, but we've seen all these other companies leap headlong into 1.0, thinking their product is exactly what they've been dreaming of all their lives, that everything is perfect and hunky-dory â" and the next thing you know some vanilla copycat release from Redmond is kicking their butt, the Board is holding emergency meetings and the CEO is on CNBC blathering sweatily about "a new direction" and "getting back to basics." No thanks, man. We like our freedom.
Where Beta means: can change suddenly without warning,
Doesn't Google Whatever mean that already. What's the point of the beta moniker. Google will just change what they want whenever. Use Google Frob and you're at risk of seeing the features and UI change without warning.
For Google:
"Beta means we don't want to be limited to the features we are offering, said we would offer, or offered once but no longer. We don't want to be accountable for any problems you have with the product. We don't want to be held to account for any promise we made concerning the product, even its existence. And we want to be able to change anything about the product without notice, no matter the impact, without consequences."
Or more succinctly: "You are on your own. Good luck with it".
From what I can tell, Google doesn't bother with alpha releases. It's all beta, and it's all good.
The evil meter didn't even have to budge for this one...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Does anyone else think that Google is full of themselves? They try and re-define EVERYTHING, as if things that they didn't think of are wrong and moronic. From IPOs, to financial reporting to Beta.
Whatever.
Reminds me of me in my younger days aka arrogance.
I don't understand why Google would want to change the definition of beta, or at least in how it refers to web based software. If its a differnet type of product, why not create a new name for it. That to me seems to be more Google's style anyway. So call it dynamicware or some such nonsense. Something to reflect that while the existing features are complete and functional, new tools may be added.
What kind of new nonsense words can you come up with?
-=Bang Bang=-
It's evil to redefine commonly understood terms to new meanings just to suit your business model. It's also very 1984ish NewSpeak.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
By keeping anything in BETA (even an open BETA), they can basically decrease user expectations. If things are better than expected, users feel really good. If they are worse than expected, hey, it's a BETA.
The other posts about being able to make changes on the fly also apply here. If it's a BETA, the users have no right to grouse. If it is an established release, the company has to deal with whiners who say "but I really liked it the other way" or "what happened to my screen".
Sure, people will grouse about BETAs too, but at least Google can quote the famous philosopher and say "tough crap".
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
But Google is really playing with fire here by using more than one meaning for beta.
After all, values of beta will give rise to dom!
Bulshytt to me.
Hey, they could call it GMail Bravo and move it to Charley state later on.
Beta is the new "Under Construction".
See, you replaced a word, while google would've changed the definition :-)
That was very funny, but a rimshot simply isn't suitable.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
I think it encourages the engineers to actively improve it and encourages users to actively request features, changes, and fixes.
Yeah, but the whole "public beta" abuse was being used by a lot of people (even large companies) long before Google started its perpetual-beta web apps. The term "beta" has lost its meaning, but Google didn't start it; the meaning was already dead when Google got its hands on it and tore the carcass limb-from-limb.
Even when non-Beta Versions are available, they'll automatically give you the Beta version.
Take Google World for example: If you want to download it and have Javascript enabled, you'll automatically get to download 4.3 BETA without being asked.
There are other versions available (e.g. 4.2 without a BETA tag) when you browse the site with Javascript turned off, but they assume everyone wants to be their Beta tester. That's just plain stupid!
Alpha means that it's under "development" and the code or application probably runs on the developer's test machine. The underlying code and libraries might change at any time.
Beta means that it's undergoing "testing" and there's more configuration control on the underlying code, libraries, and OS. So it has a stronger "version", and you're working out kinks and incompatibilities between particular pieces of the system. Also, it's running on a dedicated set of test servers, and it's a bit harder to get software changes reviewed and approved to install on a test server.
Production means that the software is fully deployed on a production system and changes should not be made without going through a full set of tests. No new features should really be introduced into a production release, just bug fixes. And a major updated production release should really go on a completely separate system or server.
In this day and age of rapid spiral development, where minor versions are pushed out monthly, I can see why no one really wants to call their service production ready. For one thing, it eliminates a lot of the freedom you have to add and improve things. So I can see why Google might not want to stand up a separate set of production servers to host applications that they know they're not done with yet because they still have features on their list of things to implement.
No. Ill-educated sheep misusing words does not change the meaning of those words, no matter what descriptivists believe.
The best part is that descriptivist's belief in descriptivism is generally descriptivist: "us being wrong invents correctness, and I know because there are so many of us who believe that."
StoneCypher is Full of BS
But, what was the original meaning of "beta" to begin with ?
Several sources (Wikipedia, Jargon Files, etc...) will all point to the fact that "beta" software is software that has passed initial testing, and is released to some users (outside the company) before the official product launch, in order to gather feedback, perform tests, find malfunctions and see if everything is working as it should and if nothing needs fixing.
It only means that some malfunctions may still be hidden somewhere. But otherwise it should be usable.
Most of Google's softwares are exactly in this state : Google has bothered to officially announce them as final, but nonetheless they are functional (although some minor tweaking might still appear here and there to improve them or introduce micro features that are needed).
That's also why 99.999% of open source software has also version numbers like "0.9.54 beta" : it should works, but the author doesn't he can freely pretend that the software will run in every known configuration possible.
And that is the canonical meaning of the word.
The fact that most users today consider that it means "warning, may spontaneously implode and ruin you, blow your house up and kick your dog in the process", has nothing to do with the word's original meaning. This is only due to the huge a mount of companies which have very poor coding practices producing horribly crash prone stuff, and make available to the public monstruosities that never should have left the company and that still need massive amount of ironing.
in short :
- "beta" doesn't assert the quality of the code.
- "beta" asserts a step in the production cycle (let a bigger user base test it)
It's the bad quality of some product released in "beta" which has lead people to associate the word with bad quality software.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
... right, so the US is using socialist policies to fix it?
I don't think so. I think someone has finally realized that the good ole USA can't rely on capitalism and constant bull economies to keep it on top. It has to switch to a sustainable model... like the rest of the world.
Thank goodness, too. Those darn americans were starting to think they were invincible, and that they could invade anywhere, for no reason!
If "beta" doesn't mean what we think it means then call your "beta" software something else. You don't get to make up your own meaning of words.
I can see why this bothers people, but the ease of releasing new software really has changed something. I've got friends who release new features once or twice a week. And users on the web are pretty tolerant of using something with an initially low level of features as long as it's good for something and there is steady improvement.
This means that if we're going to use the old terms, then we either have to change "released" or "beta". Using "beta" to mean "still not where we want it" seems reasonable to me, so that people get their expectations set properly.
You can't explain away fiscal irresponsibility. What the Government did in the Clinton era is force fiscal irresponsibility on Fannie and Freddie. In other words they forced them to have a certain percentage of loans to low income applicants. These were the first loans to default and get foreclosed upon. It doesn't account for the entire problem. It actually was much larger and did include private companies who were greedy. But the kick-start of this problem was the enforcement of bad business practices upon the big lenders by the federal government under the Clinton Administration.
It's simple. The web and it's browsers are together such a pile of horse manure that the best thing you could possibly write for it will only be beta quality. Ever.
I did not intend this to be a troll.
Have a nice day.
You have to buy a subscription.
Beta has now become a disclaimer, I remember well when it just meant 'all the features aren't implemented' now it seems like a legal get-out clause if something goes wrong.
I always just assumed that when Google says "beta" they mean, "doesn't generate a profit yet".
Google/FOSS people say "stuff that works good enough to release to the public but isn't finished" is beta.
Microsoft/Proprietary developers say "stuff that works good enough to release to the public but isn't finished" is for sale.
Whats in a name?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Google got those spam emails back in the early nineties too. Whereas we all just deleted the emails and chewed out our friends for sending them, google took the idea and ran with it. We now have our Beta Email Tracking Application. Does this mean Bill Gates will send Google $1000?
Means no liability.
I think i've already replied to this topic...
Following this type of definition, World of Warcraft would technically be a beta!
And note that Google Chrome is beta. Yet it's being championed as "the new web browser". Google are using the "it's beta" line while Real People are already using this as their browser.
The whole community was tugging at their collars when Ubuntu released 8.04 with Firefox 3 beta.
Yet with Chrome, everybody's overlooked the fact that it's beta. Newspapers and other mainstream media are going nuts over it and non-technical people are using it as their primary web browser. Maybe some responsibility needs to be taken here?
Says everybody who knows what the term means.
I.e., you don't know.
You can read more about it here.
You mean the bit which says:
Developers release either a closed beta or an open beta; closed beta versions are released to a select group of individuals for a user test, while open betas are to a larger community group, usually the general public.
?
It's a more plausible point to argue about whether you can give feedback. I note that they say, for example at http://www.google.com/support/finance/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=71877 :
The 'beta' label means that the product is still being tested and refined; we generally find that the best way to improve new products is to get feedback directly from users on what works and what doesn't. So if you have comments or suggestions about Google Finance, we'd love to hear from you.
Now, it may be their mechanism for making it easy or obvious for users to report back is rather unclear or unpublicised. But that's a separate issue - I see nothing to show that Google are using the term incorrectly, and your own links support that their usage of "beta" is correct.
If you would learn how to read I just said it was the Government's fault? Geeze.
yes, the republican govn't.
Both parties are to blame. Don't be so blind as to not see that.
'We believe beta has a different meaning when applied to applications on the Web,' says a company spokesman.
I've explained this before, nearly ad nauseum: this is part and parcel of the larger goal of re-branding all software as "content" and then convincing users to pay for it every month, just as they do their entertainment services. It's all done in the name of profit, greed, and consistent cash flow. Software publishers have been jealously eyeing the financials of their brethren in content publishing for a long, long time.
I remember being at Oracle when there were a couple of guys in an unheated garage in Palo Alto trying to recruit my friends for some thing called Architext. I remember having a family member working on some special project at DEC's center at the top of University - Altavista. Remember when Yahoo! was $400.00/share?
It's a freakin search engine kids. THERE IS NO TRUE VALUE PROPOSITION.
Sergei and Larry sold out a long time ago - "first do no harm" my ass those spooked up bastiges.
It's not as complicated as you guys would have it be. You are thinking about software like people who write software think about it, not like users. To a non-technical user, beta means 'edgy and fun'. I think a lot of technical users think of it like that as well. Google is going to support their users in whatever manner they support them (or not, i don't really know) reguardless of version. They have no reason to keep it in beta to 'save their own ass', its a designation that holds no real legal meaning. All they are doing is using a word that users understand vaguely, on the users' terms, not webster or wikipedia's terms. Its like when manufacturer puts "NEW" on box of cereal or a pack of hot dogs. No one thinks "omg its new, i dont want to risk it!!". Frosted mini wheats aren't new by any stretch of the imagination, but if they can squeeze it onto the box somewhere, people buy more of it.