Slashdot Log In
Has Google Redefined Beta?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Sep 25, 2008 08:13 AM
from the finished-when-it's-finished dept.
from the finished-when-it's-finished dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Us: If you don't like the definition, use a different word.
Google: If you don't like the definition, change the definition.
It's just how language works. If you're important enough you can do whatever you want.
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
There, fixed it for you.
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Funny)
There, fixed it for you.
See, you replaced a word, while google would've changed the definition :-)
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Who, aside from people using GMail as some sort of enterprise mail application, gives a shit what they call it? I don't, it's something I'm using for "free" and it works.
YMMV.
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if a company isn't willing to stand behind their product 100%, it just means on the first catastrophic failure they will blame it on being a "beta". This is just more BS to get away with less responsibility. I know this trick because I purposely left an app in "beta" so that when the managers found something they didn't like or something that didn't work I always had the "it's a beta" card. When people talk about Google's beta policy they really want Google to "man up" and take responsibility for the quality of all their apps when they release them to the general public.
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Name one other company that says they'll cough up money or take the blame when their post-beta, ready for consumption software goes tits up and loses data or creates for downtime?
Most EULA's I've read say the maker cannot be held at fault. Even the GPL has an "As-Is" clause. So how exactly does this make Google less "manly"?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because people who are using the term beta "traditionally" are being subject to the expectations that Google product users that their work will be of the same quality as Google's betas... when In reality, I think we can say that most of Google's beta stuff is a fine product already.
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Google hasn't "changed the definition"... no one else is using it like Google uses it.
They're just using the word wrong.
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Might I suggest that they use the term Gamma? It seems obvious to me. It is more advanced than Beta but not officially "Gold Master".
Layne
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're just hedging their bets. People are used to using their beta software and, like Gmail, it's generally pretty solid so it doesn't have the same air of flakiness about it as other beta software might. But if anything goes wrong they can say "well, it's just beta...and besides, you didn't pay anything for that".
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
Google can absolve itself of any responsibility for using their "beta" applications (even though they are pushing corporate customers to do so) simply by using the ole "point and claim beta" trick.
The best part is that more mature (older meaning) software companies put out a product that is feature complete (not really) and MOSTLY bug free (considering how complex the software is) and don't rely upon the "beta" tag to cover their ass.
Instead, they continue to update, improve, correct, and generally act like real software companies and they get derided by the same people who simply accept it from Google because of the "beta" tag.
These are the same type of morons who think it's simple to make an operating system without bugs and problems, yet seemingly accept them from their favorite flavor of =nix all the time.
Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, et al have been making software a lot longer than Google, and have, in my opinion, been doing it a lot better too.
They may have bugs in their products, and may require updates to correct these, however at least they aren't trying to hide behind a "but it's still beta" moniker simply becuase they know their drooling masses of fans will nerdgasm over everything they put out and just accept the flows as it's still being "worked on".
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, et al have been making software a lot longer than Google, and have, in my opinion, been doing it a lot better too.
Their products also cost money.
Those "drooling masses of fans" that "nerdgasm" over Google's products are probably willing to accept flaws because the price is significantly lower than the Apple/MS/Adobe equivalent. Infinitely lower, actually.
These are the same type of morons who..
...know their drooling masses of fans will...
<personal opinion>You're an anti-google troll, and so be it. However, please don't go around calling a large group of people "drooling masses" and "morons" because you happen to be a fan of a competing product. It just makes you look like the complete asshole you are.</personal opinion>
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Well for a company that can't spell Googol [wikipedia.org] correctly, I'm not surprised they would not be using the word Beta correctly. We're just lucky they haven't started spelling it Baitah, Beata, or Bayta.
Jonah HEX
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
No it's not. I really don't know why they continue to use "beta" when a product is clearly mature.
My honest guess? It's a compromise between the marketing people and the developers. Developers want to add new things continuously and not go through these product development stages where they do endless testing to see if people like a new feature. Marketing people get all nervous about new features "ruining their brand". The developers are still in charge at Google (being a young company), so the compromise is just to call everything "beta" (A pretty stupid compromise IMO).
You're entirely right about the "pay for premium" though. Google needs to drop the stupid beta word, and pick something that's more representative of what the product is. I'd choose something more like a "lifestage" kind of label. Toddler, teenage, adult, mature, senior, elderly would be good starts.
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:4, Informative)
With beta software they can break or alter anything at will and our only course of action is to say "Thank you; may I please have another?"
Parent
Re:That's just plain stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
From my experience, their 'beta' is often better than most releases from other companies. Why does a label like 'beta' have to define the quality of a product, why can't the brand provide that?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer the old definitions: (Score:5, Funny)
Alpha: it doesn't work.
Beta: it still doesn't work.
Re:I prefer the old definitions: (Score:5, Funny)
And to continue on that
Release Candidate: It might work, but it probably won't
Gold: It still doesn't work, but users are great bugtester
SP1: Still not done, has some bugs left and misses some funtionality
SP2: This one might actually be done, try at your own risk though
Parent
Re:I prefer the old definitions: (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I prefer the old definitions: (Score:5, Funny)
Re Gmail being beta, does this mean when it's 'finished' it will be Alpha mail?
Parent
Re:I prefer the old definitions: (Score:5, Funny)
Software Development Lifecycle
Alpha- short for "It's alpha-lly crap"
Beta - short for "It's still alpha-ally crap, but it's beta than it was"
Release - short for "it still release-tinks, but we've gotta publish"
Gold - Short for "it's gold-arn awful, but at least it's out the door"
Parent
Bit of a stab at Microshaft in TFA (Score:2)
I rather like that :-)
Google may not know what beta means... (Score:5, Insightful)
I call BS on this one. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a load of BS. Those fat asses are just lazy to carry the responsibility.
Why label it beta at all... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
"Has Google Redefined Beta?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Has Google Redefined Beta?" (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I think its fair enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I think its fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Perhaps they should be more wary.... (Score:4, Funny)
I seem to recall that Stavro Muller intentionally added the Beta label to one of his own restaurants, with catastrophic results.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mr T says: I ain't eatin no beta-carotene, sucka!
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:BS (Score:5, Insightful)
It also means they can change the product in any way they wish, including withdrawing it completely, without explanation.
No other company could get away with this, but because the products are, in effect, free I guess they can do what they want. But I bet the lawsuits would fly if they ever dared pull something like GMail.
But remember folks, you get what you pay for.
Parent
MS redefined beta a long time ago (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Change? No. Excuse? Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Actually no.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Let's be honest (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Still in Beta?!? (Score:3, Funny)
Beta = Everything old is NEW again! (Score:4, Interesting)
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, [associatedcontent.com] that swims alone from the crowd with a brilliant display of features.
Experimental Use exception perhaps? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Google is Following in Humpty Dumpty's Footsteps (Score:5, Funny)
When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.
--- Humpty Dumpty
as if anyone is in a position to argue? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Yes... (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds reasonable. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: *NOT* The True Meaning of Beta (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. [wikipedia.org]
Here's a perfect example of why Google's stuff is not beta:
When Google Earth "beta" was released for Linux, I downloaded it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.