Comments on: Public Betas Are a Sham

By: David Walker

David Walker — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:43:05 +0000

A beta is a finished product that needs more testing to discover and fix bugs. A public beta is intended to test a wider variety of hardware, software and workflow options than in house testing could accomplish in a reasonable length of time and at reasonable cost.

If you want to add features put them into a new version number or have the class to admit that your product is still in the development phase. When it hits feature complete call it the alpha it really is.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:12:58 +0000

Companies that stick to betas for long periods of time are actually short changing themselves. I never actually knew that gmail had the new features that were mentioned. I thought it was still the same product that I tried years ago. Had there been a new version number, instead of the same beta label, I would have known something changed and at least went back to try out what’s new.

One of the smartest things Micro$oft ever did was to equate the year to the version. Heck, if I tried gmail 2004 and didn’t like it, maybe gmail 2007 will be better.

By: David Ramos

David Ramos — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:54:43 +0000

It would seem like they’re constantly adding to their application, based on user behaviour — so why isn’t the ‘beta’ tag justified for GMail?

Um, isn’t that what version numbers are for?

By: Matthew Smith

Matthew Smith — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:48:41 +0000

I disagree with Arun. Look at long-lived applications such as Photoshop. Sure, they release a new version every year or two, but none of the versions are a “beta” version. That doesn’t stop them from improving the next release or even releasing a point release. Beta is for something new that needs to be tested.

By: Arun Kale

Arun Kale — Wed, 31 May 2006 19:54:29 +0000

I agree with Jonathan . In addition to the ‘Delete’ button, Google didn’t even have the e-mail chat feature that they do now. And even that is just one of the many new features since GMail was launched. It would seem like they’re constantly adding to their application, based on user behaviour — so why isn’t the ‘beta’ tag justified for GMail?

By: Marquee

Marquee — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:06:12 +0000

Google started this and most of their stuff remains in beta. Look at Gmail. How long does this need to be “beta”? Is that so in the event it breaks, they can say “hey it’s just in beta, you can’t complain”? It’s silly.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:53:25 +0000

I think for a proper beta you need to have a formal (and easy) method for people to provide feedback on the application/product. Do you know how to provide feedback in live mail, google stuff? Even better is if you don’t close user tickets with no explanation like they did with the windows onecare beta

By: Blaze

Blaze — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 02:59:58 +0000

I just wrote a post in the similar vain to this, titled Your Beta Better Be Brilliant It’s more along the lines of not disappointing users with lacklustre beta’s but still the same jist.

By: Jonathan Dobres

Jonathan Dobres — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:44:08 +0000

I think that Flickr and Google use “beta” status in a very different way from most companies. For some companies, beta means incomplete or work in progress. For Google, it seems to be more an expression of the company’s philosophy: The product is feature complete and basicly bug free, but it isn’t perfect yet. To get it there, we’re going to open it up publicly, let millions of people use it, and then mine the data to analyze user behaviors. How do you think Gmail got a delete button?

By: EV

EV — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:30:46 +0000

I always figured that GMail and Flickr were trying to be ironic in their use of “Beta.”