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.
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?
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.
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 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.
Actually, you're wrong (about google going back to what Beta SHOULD be, not about what it should be). From TFA.
"We believe beta has a different meaning when applied to applications on the Web, where people expect continual improvements in a product.."
They're not stabilizing, they're adding features.
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.
All I can say is that we're out of beta: we're releasing on time.
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
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
When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.
--- Humpty Dumpty
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
And the last time I checked that was called versioning.
And they have redefined 'no evil' too.
Then perhaps, someone should tell them, "I do not think that word means what you think it does."
Google should just use the tried-and-true "Under Construction" animated gif instead. Blinking text is a plus.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
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.
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.
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.
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.