Gmail Marks Five Years In Beta

TrekkieTechie writes "Though in fact the big day was April 1st, Google celebrated the five-year anniversary of the popular online email service Gmail with a post on the service's blog, saying 'we want to give a big thank you to all of you who use Gmail every day, to those who've been around since the beginning, to those who were using an AJAX app before the term AJAX was popular, to those who started chatting right in your email ... we couldn't have gotten here without you.' The milestone has also prompted speculation about when, if ever, Gmail will lose its beta status, and Ars Technica recently sat down with Todd Jackson, Gmail's Project Manager, to discuss the reasoning behind that nagging beta label."

Comments

Beta?

[Bored Grammar Nazi]

The milestone has also prompted speculation about when, if ever, Gmail will lose its beta status, and Ars Technica recently sat down with Todd Jackson, Gmail's Project Manager, to discuss the reasoning behind that nagging beta label.

Whatever the reason, it certainly is making people talk about it.

Re:Beta?

[palegray.net]

Look, I keep trying to explain this, but nobody wants to listen to reason. Google's engineering population contains a high percentile of gamers, and they're not taking Gmail out of beta until Duke Nukem Forever is released. Geez, it's the second Slashdot story today I've had to comment in to point out these obvious parallels to the sinister ties between extreme gaming and our everyday lives.

Re:Beta?

[AvitarX]

Witht he changes they have been making I actually feel the quality is degrading.

It has a lot of nice new features, but it feels like it is hanging a lot more often too.

It actually now feels more, not less like a beta to me.

Re:Beta?

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

i used to have a lot of problems with gmail hanging, especially when dealing with attachments (either inbound or outbound). also had a stretch of time where it would never actually get to the inbox after i entered the login credentials, and i would sit at a white screen hours no matter what i did. but since i started logging in at the https version i have had no issues. YMMV of course, but give it a shot.

Re:Beta?

[elrous0]

Maybe Gmail 1.0 is sort of like Warp 10--something that can never actually be reached. By the time it ends, it will be up to Beta release version 0.99999997

Re:Beta?

[darjen]

you actually sat there for hours watching a white screen? I hope you had munchies.

Still in beta?

[Kuroji]

Well, despite that a lot of Google's products seem to still have the beta tag, it also means that they aren't necessarily going to be held to the same standard. For example, when Gmail decides to up and die for a few hours while they upgrade.

Re:Still in beta?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Right. Contrast this to something like Google Search, which, on the very few (like, three?) occasions it's ever been down, everyone assumed that it was their own Internet that was at fault.

That's what I would assume the criteria would be -- Gmail will come out of beta when it's as stable as Google's other services that are out of beta.

Of course, TFA seems to be operating under a different definition of "beta". IMAP is certainly a feature I would demand from a service like Gmail, but it really isn't a measure of stability.

Re:Still in beta?

[v1]

GMail has imap, though you have to deliberately turn it on (it's off by default) and the switch isn't exactly glaringly obvious.

I believe the reason it's still "beta" is right now a LOT of people are using it as NON beta, for business, other important uses, or perhaps it's their only email address. Google probably knows that there's always that 1-in-1000 chance that something they do will break it in a way that causes data loss, or scrambles things badly enough for a few users that there won't be any reasonable way to fix it short of reset their mailboxes. When this happens, having the "beta" tag still on it will soften the public backlash a lot.

There's a couple ISPs in this area that have horrid email systems. One of them (Qwest) farmed out their email to MSN Live last year, and that has been an unrelenting nightmare for their customers. Whenever they approach us to help with their email, we convert them to gmail, and all of their problems instantly go away. That was after spending TWO hours on the phone being bounced between MSN and Qwest, each telling us that all the issues were the other's problem. We're very thankful to have GMail as an alternative to give to our customers.

GMail also happens to be the only imap email account I have, which is probably unusual since I have six of them, but that makes it something I can access from my ipod touch, which is a nice bonus. (yes it does pop too but you can't do concurrent pop on multiple computers without headaches)

I really do hope they keep it going, though I could personally care less if it never loses the "beta" tag.

Re:Still in beta?

[__aamnbm3774]

it also means that they aren't necessarily going to be held to the same standard.

You might not hold them to the same standard as other people do, but quite frankly, it is embarrassing someone as large and powerful as Google can't publish an EMAIL application release version.

is Google trying to prove something by saying 'nothing should ever come out of beta' or some other stupid philosophical meaning?

What point are they trying to make? Why won't you admit this is silly? Quit Drinking the Kool-Aid.

Why?

[Jurily]

Does it matter if it's beta when it's still the best and most reliable free email service around?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humanity is still in Beta and most people don't seem to mind that.

Re:Why?

[Thanshin]

Does it matter if it's beta when it's still the best and most reliable free email service around?

Quite the opposite.

When a friend told me he was closing a beta phase my first question was "Is it more stable than gmail?"

Re:Why?

[codeButcher]

Humanity is still in Beta

... and that is probably flattering yourself.

Re:Why?

[Jurily]

When a friend told me he was closing a beta phase my first question was "Is it more stable than gmail?"

If only more projects worked that way...

Re:Why?

[gusmao]

You could say that not now.

Generally, the beta version is a prototype of the product that comes even before the release candidates. People don't usually pay for beta releases, and it's very uncommon for a product to remain so long in beta, especially when it is already stable, widely deployed and used daily by millions of users.

This curious fact generate especulations about the reasons for that, since so far, no good one was given. What if they decided for instance, that when Gmail is out of beta, the service will be no longer be free and a subscription model will be put in place? Or that the current storage will be available only for premium users? Or that the service will be simply discontinued? The beta versioning could easily provide an excuse for any of those or other changes that could directly impact you, especially after you come to rely strongly on the service.

Re:Why?

[taragui]

Only some of them. Most (at least judging from the general level of comments here in Slashdot) are Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons.

Perhaps GMail is glad it's a Beta, because Alphas work too hard?

Re:Why?

[Darth_brooks]

Is that why so many "Alpha Male" types are knuckle dragging meat heads?

Re:Why?

[dirk]

It matters because it weakens the meaning of being in beta and confuses users. It used to be that beta was for testing. If you downloaded and installed a beta product, it was understood that there would be bugs and problems and they should be reported. With Google using beta as a constant tag (I remember ICQ used to do this back in the day to), users don't have a clear understanding of what a beta is anymore. They think beta is just a new product and don't expect bugs and don't report them. Open beta is a much harder thing to get useful information from if people judge your beta product just like they would a finished product, which is what is beginning to happen with places like Google tagging regular released like beta releases.

Re:Why?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Frankly, I'd much rather have Outlook be gone, for several reasons:

  - Gmail is pretty solidly technically superior, in most of the ways we care about. Example: It doesn't fall over if you put several hundred thousand emails in the same "folder".

  - Gmail moves the data off of the end-user's computer. Far, far too many Outlook setups (especially in small businesses) store everything locally, with no backup -- one hard drive crash away from all that archived email gone.

  - Gmail is platform-agnostic. It's actually annoyingly browser-aware, but all browsers are supported somewhat, and among the fully-supported browsers are Firefox and Safari, and Gecko and Webkit both exist for every platform I care about. That's one baby-step closer to Linux on the corporate desktop.

  - Google actually seems to support open standards -- for example, Gmail includes GTalk, which operates over Jabber. Email is available via IMAP, and calendars via caldav. Contrast to Outlook/Exchange -- the Halloween documents show that Microsoft deliberately chose proprietary protocols, as well as proprietary extensions/perversions of existing protocols.

Now, I'd still prefer we all start improving the existing open implementations, and get to where this is entirely open standard, commodity stuff, just like IMAP and SMTP is today. But Gmail would be a marked improvement over Outlook, in many ways.

Re:Why?

[Kjella]

Being beta usually means something is missing. If you see beta software in "de facto production" like GMail is, it usually means that it was a proof of concept/prototype/pilot that people ended up using and relying on without the proper moves to production envinronments, handover from development to support, SLAs, backups, support channels and whatnot. Having a beta acting like a release is not a healthy sign, it's a sign of sickness. Whenever you have something that you want people to actually work with, not just fiddle with and test out it should be a release with all that encompasses. Introducing beta as the lowest support tier is just bullshit, it's per definition not an end-user release.

Re:Why?

[Jurily]

- Gmail moves the data off of the end-user's computer. Far, far too many Outlook setups (especially in small businesses) store everything locally, with no backup -- one hard drive crash away from all that archived email gone.

Sysadmins not doing backup is one thing, but how is surrendering all your data because it's convenient better?

Re:Why?

[SwedishPenguin]

I'll admit that certain individuals may be in Beta, but as a group, I'd say we're all still in pre-Alpha unfortunately.

Re:Why?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Sysadmins doing backups is only part of the problem, and convenience is pretty valuable.

I had a longer post written, but then I realized you've got a gmail.com address obfuscated up there. Clearly you think the benefits are worth any real or imagined loss of privacy.

Re:Why?

[Jurily]

I had a longer post written, but then I realized you've got a gmail.com address obfuscated up there. Clearly you think the benefits are worth any real or imagined loss of privacy.

My internet persona is not a company.

Re:Why?

[Dog-Cow]

There's a huge difference between using gmail as a private address and a company using it for all corporate communications.

Re:Why?

[2short]

And that's exactly the problem. I tell people a build is "beta" and they think "Oh, like gmail... as stable as anything, half the world uses it all the time for important stuff, no problem" when I'm trying to say "Keep this the hell away from your production process, it hasn't been thoroughly tested so I assume there are horrible bugs in there somewhere"

Gmail is not beta. Google is misusing the term and screwing up the language for the rest of us. Excellent mail service though.

Re:Why?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Granted. Just figuring you understand some of the implications, both ways.

Let's say I want to duplicate Gmail. I'd start with some sort of IMAP server. I'd put it on something like RAID (or better, ZFS), then replicate that setup on at least one other machine -- probably via DRBD. I'd put both of them on a UPS, and I'd still take regular backups, in case people delete something they don't mean to.

Then, I'd add webmail by picking one of several open source projects (the first that comes to mind is Squirrelmail, but I'm sure there are better), which can use IMAP as a storage system.

Then, I'd setup a webserver with webdav enabled, and train people to use Sunbird (or something similar) to share calendars. And a Jabber server, and of course, an SMTP server (probably Postfix).

Then, I'd still be short some of the groupware functionality (how do I send an invitation that someone can click on from their email, that will automatically add the event to their calendar?), and the webmail likely wouldn't be as good, though some users will appreciate the ability to use standard IMAP clients.

All the while, I'd be billing my own hours, and the company would be paying for all the hardware involved -- half of which would necessarily be sitting idle, and possibly more. I don't know what Google charges for corporate-level Google Apps, but I doubt it's more than my salary.

So, much as I'd like that job, this is something I think it makes sense to outsource. Unless you're large enough to run your own datacenter, you'll be outsourcing other things, anyway -- hosting, for example. Is a company based on Amazon Web Services "surrendering all its data"?

(To any recruiters reading this: I actually wouldn't mind that job, even if I don't agree that it's the best approach.)

If the issue is that Gmail might go away, there are backup scripts available, and IMAP access makes it easy to write more -- and if you've got a domain (cheap), you can migrate off Gmail later without having to switch email addresses or lose mail. If the issue is that Internet access might go away, Gmail has an offline feature -- I believe it uses Google Gears. If the issue is security, use https://mail.google.com/ -- you could even block access to it at the corporate firewall/proxy, if you have one.

Now, look at my own email address -- I already have a server I keep in my house, to play with. I put email on it, and bought a domain (when I was 15 -- it seemed cool at the time). I'd rather Google doesn't have my data, and I'd rather have the freedom to add whatever features I can write. So I do see your point.

Re:Why?

[AeroIllini]

Sysadmins not doing backup is one thing, but how is surrendering all your data because it's convenient better?

You're not "surrendering your data" any more than you would be if you hired Acme Outside Contractors, Inc. to run your infrastructure.

Businesses using GMail would actually be using Google Apps, which operates contractually the same as any other IT contractor, with all the legal requirements for non-disclosure that entails and an enterprise-level SLA.

This is not a free service, because of the aforementioned legal/SLA requirements. But it is certainly cheaper than running your own Exchange server and gives your employees more features and better usability than Outlook. If your only reason for opposing it is some vague aversion to storing your data on iron you don't own, then you need to come join the rest of us in the 21st Century, where outsourcing, contracting, and offsite storage are the norm and contractual requirements for proprietary data storage are built into every vendor agreement. Google Apps is no different in this respect; it's just another contracted vendor, albeit a vendor with kick-ass software and 3 nines uptime.

Re:Why?

[SanityInAnarchy]

GMail doesn't work so well when your company of 400k+ people cannot access it through the company firewall and frankly yes, that is Google's fault.

It's Google's fault the company firewall is misconfigured?

a provider that has free services should not share a network with proprietary data.

...why not?

It's google's fault that every hack that can make a gmail account now doesn't know anything better than to think their new account is the k-rad 31337.

Yeah, because I totally used l33tsp34k all over my post, and Google told me to. Oh wait...

Browsers should NOT be virtual machines.

Why not?

Fuck you, I'm not getting off your lawn.

If you want to write an application, write an application. If you want to navigate data and present it, you use *HTML.

And the two are not mutually exclusive. Much as you might not like to admit, applications have been built on such unlikely platforms as VBA. Frankly, given the choice between that and the Web, I'll choose Web every time -- Javascript is a much better language than VB anyhow.

You don't make a single substantial point.

Nor do you. You state a few opinions, without really giving any reasons why.

Browsers should not be virtual machines, and proprietary data should not be on the same network as a free service, because teknopurge says so!

Let's start with that very simplest of claims: Browsers should not be virtual machines. Why not? Why shouldn't the browser be a generic application platform?

What a coincidence...

[VinylRecords]

This also marks the five year anniversary of me not using HotMail or Outlook Express.

Re:What a coincidence...

[threexk]

Or five years of Gmail user smugness.

Re:What a coincidence...

[peragrin]

So that explains Mac users. People who enjoy being able to use their software are smug.

Does that make all windows users maschosists?

Re:What a coincidence...

[drinkypoo]

The only thing you can't be smug about is bandwidth use. Gmail overuses XML for everything and thus inflates bandwidth usage dramatically. I couldn't even change my fucking settings on a modem because I couldn't bring up the page before the timeout. No kidding.

Re:What a coincidence...

[robot_love]

I read that as "Wordpress made me abandon monogamy".

I thought, "I must look into this 'Wordpress'".

Re:What a coincidence...

[MaerD]

In all seriousness, since Gmail I have not used any other mail client for email outside of my job. My first client was pine which "just worked" and got most things right for me.. I finally moved to using thunderbird and then evolution around 2000. I tried hotmail/yahoo and wasn't that impressed. When I finally got a gmail account.. that was it, I stopped using my other mail clients. The interface was just that good.

Re:What a coincidence...

[spyrochaete]

Something tells me you don't practise what you preach in your Slashdot sig!

Tag

[daniduclos]

A Beta tag only makes sense if there is a "final" release planned at some point in the future. If it's going to be forever in Beta, it becomes meaningless, just like those web pages of 1999 with an eternal "under construction" gif.

Re:Tag

[Starayo]

Hey! I'm going to finish it one day!

Gmail is a sandbox

[Basje]

Gmail is the beta for the Google Apps mail component. It's not likely that it will ever come out of beta status: it being beta has a function.

Re:Gmail is a sandbox

[Thanshin]

it being beta has a function.

f()?

Re:Gmail is a sandbox

[Thanshin]

f()?

crap.

P.S.: f() -> f(Greek small letter beta) ...

I'll go back to my cave.

Gmail is Effective .

[ajay_walia]

Beta no Beta it has been a Good experience using Gmail . Moreover it changed the Market freeing us of Quota's . . . .

Consumer psychology

[threexk]

"Beta" is just being used as a buzz word to make Gmail perpetually seem like the hip new computer thing.

Re:Consumer psychology

[shish]

Either that, or the published reason: A feature all google services must have is "profit", and gmail is still lacking that feature. (FYI: I'm using the paid-for google apps bundle, and it's not marked as beta)

oh noes

[jessica_alba]

they know i have erectile-dysfunction and am also insecure about my bust size, and on a more dubious note, I am most likely personally responsible for all Nigerian immigration to the US. Oh yeah, I also get mail from the future...wait a second, I'm thinking about my old yahoo mail account. seriously though, how much energy is wasted hosting my personal collection of over 100,000 unread spam emails.

Beta is meaningless

[krou]

Generally, any usage of the Beta tag is meaningless in the world of web-based applications. In fact, it's meaningless for most web-pages. The reason is very simple: a site should be constantly working to improve and change. The change that happens is not bound by the traditional software version release, either. All websites are, by default, in a perpetual beta, whether its users know it or not, which makes the label itself meaningless.

Re:Beta is meaningless

[Aladrin]

You definitely don't understand, then. Most professional websites are -not- live-tested on their users. There's a 'beta' behind the scenes with actual testers, not just random users.

Very few professional websites do what GMail is doing and have the 'beta' version be the live version.

And don't confuse 'having bugs' with being a 'beta'. All software has bugs, no matter what stage of development it's in.

Re:Beta is meaningless

[alpayerturkmen]

The reason is very simple: a site should be constantly working to improve and change.

No all sites can improve. http://www.endoftheinternet.com/

Re:Beta is meaningless

[krou]

Sure, I fully admit I don't understand why people use the "Beta" label, except as some sort of marketing gimmick.

First, I didn't mention anything about bugs, so I wasn't confusing the issue in that regard.

Second, I would probably agree that most professional websites are not currently live tested, but the "users are testers" model is certainly what's being touted, and this is likely to become the norm because there are a number of benefits. The idea of release early, release often, and have dynamic A/B testing whereby features are presented to select groups of users renders the need for "Beta" obsolete. Amazon already does this.

But, the fact that we don't have live testing does not detract from the fact that the idea of a version for the user has no meaning. I mean, when did anyone ever ask themselves, "What version of Google is this?" In the age of websites and the internet, we think in terms of a service, not a piece of software. There are no upgrades, installations, or versions necessary. Beta is irrelevant, because sites are in perpetual beta.

Does this remove the need for internal versions, or internal labels? Of course not. They are as vital as ever. I can also accept labelling something as a Beta if the site is in private testing. But my point is that, to the user, versions simply don't exist in the same way as we're used to, and to have websites open to the public carrying the Beta label for 5 years suggests that it is nothing but a gimmick and lacks any real meaning.

Wash your hands clean of it...

[greedom]

Google is notorious for keeping most of it's apps in the Beta stages because if it works, it's considered a fantastic app and when some hacker finds a huge security flaw in it or something of that nature, Google can just throw up their hands and say "Hey, it's still in Beta".

Re:5 years of searchable private emails

[Baricom]

Those are web clips - it's a mini-RSS reader that lives above the Gmail interface. If you don't use the feature, you can turn it off in Settings.

Re:Earliest adopter? (outside Google)

[u38cg]

No, but I could beat you with a stick made of pure solidified smugness. How's that for ya?

My Own GMail

[Doc Ruby]

Much as GMail is an interesting mail platform, I don't like the idea of Google getting all of my email to look thru, along with my entire contact list and traffic records with them. Even if GMail received and sent only encrypted messages, the metadata would be private. And Google already has my entire search history, as well as a lot of my click trail (REFERER incoming to searches, cached/PDF-to-HTML docs, YouTube, whatever might even run across a Google backbone). I don't need one filthy rich entity with cross-referenced records of my entire online activity.

If the GMail server were downloadable to my own server or independent ISP, I'd use it. I'd love it as software. But as service, it seems too tempting for Google to be evil.

Re:5 years of searchable private emails

[cryfreedomlove]

The decision to use gmail is voluntary. The growth of gmail is a strong signal that the market trusts Google or simply does not care about privacy.

Re:Tag -- Informative score goes to 11

[Fotograf]

it is plausible deniability front page for hidden community websites. You would be surprised how much few of them are alive. Oops. First rule of hidden community... Almost violated.

Why didn't they bake a real cake?

[imbimp]

I made a Google Analytics cake and it wasn't even an anniversary... http://www.imbimp.com/2009/03/google-analytics-dashboard-cake/

"Beta" for Gmail is still valid...

[pongo000]

...because there are still some very persistent performance issues that need to be worked out. The AJAX interface is incredibly sluggish on just about any browser/CPU combination I use it with. Very frustrating to have to wait seconds after each submit for the interface to respond.

This is further proof of the fallacy that just because something is affiliated with Google, it must be a good thing.

Long live mutt. (Don't laugh...the response time for mutt on even my slowest machine is several orders of magnitude greater than Gmail.)

Part of it is already out of beta

[snowwrestler]

Google Apps Premier Edition does not have a beta label and even provides a 99.9 uptime SLA. It also provides legal language covering confidential data and intellectual property, for those who are concerned about Google managing their business data.

I think the "beta" remains on the consumer free edition because they are still not sure if it will turn a profit, and they do not want to provide an SLA. I'm not even sure what an SLA would look like on a free product.