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.

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.

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.

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.

No, they haven't.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Google hasn't "changed the definition"... no one else is using it like Google uses it.

They're just using the word wrong.

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

It's just how life works. If you're important enough you can do whatever you want.

There, fixed it for you.

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.

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".

beta doesn't carry the stigma it used to. People are DRAWN to beta because it says "I'm a trend setter" or "I helped make this what it is." It comes from all the Open Beta testing people have gotten into, particularly with MMO's. Beta isn't a bad thing anymore. It's certainly better than a broken finished product and it's a lot easier to explain away problems

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?

Says everybody who knows what the term means.

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. 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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

<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>

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"?

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?