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.
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.
Can we just tag this "yes" and move on?
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.
Actually that isn't quite true.
Even right now I have the choice of three (3) Yahoo email interfaces. The very old version that isn't supported any more and still uses frames (but doesn't require JavaScript). The "new" Yahoo interface that has been around for a number of years, and the new-"new" interface that looks more like a desktop app.
When Yahoo introduced the "new" look and feel (the current look and feel), there was a long time between introducing it and forcing it on everyone.
Yahoo has had the lastest look and feel available for ages, and I've stuck with the old "new" look, and will continue to. (I don't like the very heavy interface that pretending to be a desktop app brings. Especially on slow connections.)
Even Google offers cutting edge features to people to test them out, before introducing them into the main stream product line.
So basically Google are talking bullshit and mis-using an established computing term.
I wank in the shower.
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.
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.
And the last time I checked that was called versioning.
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.
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.