RSSHas 'beta' lost its meaning?
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 8, 2009, 1:14 PM
About 11 years ago (please ignore the rapidly aging "10 Years" banner overhead), a very bright young man put together a hosting service for new software, and a news feed to help publicize it. I'll spare you the part where I praise my boss for his wisdom and insight and great sense of timing, although all of that's certainly true.
In 1998, the term "beta" was generally used to mean "new software;" and so "Beta News" was interpreted quite correctly to mean "new software news." Some enterprising person may be able to dig up something I published elsewhere during that time where I complained about what I perceived as the misappropriation of "beta" to simply mean "new."
You see, ten years earlier, as a professional consultant, one of my various roles was as a professional beta tester -- something you rarely see any more. And in 1988, the beta stage of product development meant something very explicit: When a software project entered a stage of development where the program was a "complete loop" -- all of its planned components had been built, compiled, and at least operational -- then its developer could release the code outside its own shop, in limited quantities, often to consultants like me capable and qualified to give it a proper shakedown.
There was a big, bold borderline between software that was ready for public consumption and software that wasn't yet fully debugged, whose shakedown had not yet begun.
In an earlier era, "beta" meant "not ready for prime time."
But by the time Nate Mook began hosting the one place on the Web where readers could find all the newest software, manufacturers had begun the process of delivering "public betas" -- previews of coming attractions that early adopters would be eager to try out first, even if it didn't all work right. There was some fun associated with the "risk" aspect of all of this...but let's be honest, the other principal attraction in all of this was the fact that public betas were typically free.
To this day, we still receive some complaints about our Fileforum hosting commercial software, in notices that try to remind us that commercial software "isn't beta."
As manufacturers (especially the smaller ones and the startups) came to realize mainly through watching BetaNews (back then with a capital "N"), there was a deeper and perhaps even more important service being fulfilled at that time: In an era when either the operating system did not do everything for its user or didn't purport to do everything, small developers made their livings (and sometimes fortunes) by building just the right product to fill the gap.
Let's face it, there are a number of functions that Windows XP, along with the add-ons Microsoft makes for it, either does not do or does not do well. So Spybot Search & Destroy and ZoneAlarm and IrfanView and Total Commander and Ad-Aware and Zoom Player and K-Lite and Real Alternative codecs, all became key components of the expert XP user's toolkit. They filled the gaps that Microsoft left open, and performed the jobs (oftentimes better) that some folks expected XP to perform -- and still do.
For most of our publication's existence, our #1 job has been to provide users with the newest software that fills the gaps and patches the holes and overcomes the annoyances. For our readers, "beta" has meant better than the original manufacturer's idea of "ready for prime time."
The day after Labor Day marks the beginning of my fourth year here at Betanews (now with the trimmed "n"); and in this period, I have seen more corrections and advisories and outright condemnations about my supposed misinterpretation of what beta is than at any other time.
Now, I was "beta" when most folks outside of Greece associated the term with a sorority or a vitamin or a breakfast cereal. But what has startled me most in recent months has been the source of my corrections: It's shifting now, and it's the manufacturers that are offering them most often.
The problem is, none of their explanations correlate with one another. Not only do the different components of the software ecosystem have different definitions for the term, but as time wears on, each of the members of those various components fail to agree with each other.
With Mozilla, for instance, there is an earnest attempt to maintain a distinction between software that the general public is expected to test ("beta") and software that Mozilla contributors are still testing privately ("alpha"). Still, since Mozilla is a purely open source organization, the alpha editions are just as public as the beta editions. And as a result, the release of new alphas is often just as publicized as the release of new betas.
With Microsoft, the term has been used selectively by marketers to refer to some class of software being distributed to the public as a preview. However, the bifurcation and subsequent layering in and around that class, coupled with the fact that different divisions of the company develop software in different ways, has led to an inconsistency that has itself become a consistent feature of Microsoft development.
Office 2010, for example, is now being offered as a "Technical Preview" to limited testers, who are reminded that this is "not a beta." While advice and bug reports are informally solicited from these members, even now there's an expectation among users of the Preview release that the functionality isn't close to what other testers are seeing in the Beta releases. Those are private, mind you -- more private than the Previews, but less private than the internal builds, which are sometimes themselves described as "betas." Meanwhile, Windows 7 has finished transcending its public beta cycle (which was not termed a "technical preview"); and Exchange 2010 is in the midst of its "public beta" which has been described to me as a "preview."
Microsoft's marketers often speak to me about Windows 7 as being a more feature-rich, complete product than XP, and continually remind me to pay attention to that aspect of it. Media Player plays more videos, Internet Explorer includes more functions, Security Essentials goes after more malware. As it was described to be once by someone who forgot whom he was speaking to, if you use the new Windows right, "you don't need all these betas."
Next: And then there's Google...
I personally feel that part of the reason for this transmuting definition of beta is for legal reasons. For example, you can't hold google responsible for anything that beta software does because legally, beta software is "not finished".
Likewise, people can sue Microsoft for a Windows 7 commercial release because they are obligated to provide software that is "safe" for you to run.
Score: -1
|In our shop, we refer to a program that's feature-incomplete as Alpha and one that's just being tested for bugs as Beta. In the Alpha stage, suggestions for new or changed features are welcomed. This is the stage where we decide exactly what the software will do. Once the software is in Beta, no more suggestions for feature changes are accepted and our programmers focus on bug fixes; making the features already in there work properly. Occasionally, it is determined that a particular feature is too bug-ridden to be able to be fixed in time to ship. That feature is then dropped. I've seen other companies' products listed as Beta for years! It seems like they'll never write final-quality code!
Score: 0
|I understand the differences between a service and an app.
I think the development methodology can have a big affect.
More and more companies are going agile, Google are agile.
When you hear about a product then see it in beta months later the product team probs use a waterfall methodology.
when you hear about a product and you see it very soon but it kind of missing some bits the product team probs use agile. just cos you see it soon it does not mean it’s less stable.
Personal, I think agile works. Some
Score: -1
|It damn well has on this website that's for sure. I'm always bemoaning the news stories that are being posted on this so called BETA news website, that 9 times out of 10 has nothing to do with Beta software. For God's sake have a name change and call it what it is, TECH news or GEEK news - because that's what this website now is. I'm sick to the back teeth of people defending news stories that have sack all to do with Beta software, because there's more out there than just stories about Beta software. Sure there is, I'm not disputing that - but call the site what it damn well is then for God's sake. Stop insulting my intelligence - if you've changed with the times, then change the name of the site to keep up with the times. There are ways of phasing in a new name and phasing out the old name you know.
Score: -1
|Scott, what you are missing is the differentiation between the types of apps you're talking about.
Mozilla Thunderbird != Google Mail.
(Or: App != Service" for those who might get stuck on the names.)
One is an application, the other is a service.
See the difference?
One has a development cycle. One is *constantly* in development.
Becoming clearer?
One can follow traditional models of staging development, testing and release. One can not.
Crystal yet?
You did realize you were talking about two entirely different things that really had no reason to be compared considering the fact they are *nothing* alike, right?
Of course you didn't understand Google's dev-cycle. It simply doesn't exist in the form in which you are trying to paint it. I am shocked someone at Google didn't explain this to you.
Score: -3
|Actually, I've had it explained to me any number of times by folks at both Google and Mozilla, about these very subjects you refer to. And what they tell me, based on their standpoints, directly contradicts your point. They both say that the differentiation between a stand-alone app and a service-based app is becoming fuzzier, less clear, more murky. What's more, if service-based apps were truly distinct (as perhaps they should be) from stand-alone apps in their development cycles, then the "beta" moniker should arguably never apply to them at all at any time.
I would be willing to accept your definition -- in fact, it actually would make some modicum of sense -- except that whenever I have tried to proffer that definition, I've had it swatted down.
-SF "Unfortunately I'm Not the Author of the Dictionary" 3
Score: 3
|"if service-based apps were truly distinct (as perhaps they should be) from stand-alone apps in their development cycles, then the "beta" moniker should arguably never apply to them at all at any time."
The "beta" doesn't apply, and it would be my guess that this is the entire reason Google Mail was in "beta" for 5+ years....to make that very point. People still view them, as demonstrated by this article and the comments, akin to desktop apps (client apps). So it didn't entirely work (people would rather laugh and think Google doesn't know what "beta" means than think for 2 seconds), but the distinction is there, and has been.
Now, of course, they have to throw a kink in the whole works with their bizarre development tracks for their Chrome Browser, which is the exception that proves the rule, right? ;)
Score: -2
|I don't think the application/service distinction differentiates then in terms of being development cycle based or continuously developed. An application can be continuously developed and a service can have development cycles (it's a sane behavior to do that IMO).
I always understood that a beta software/service was something that needed better testing around more platforms and usage scenarios. Something not meant for a release to every user of the application/service. Of course now it's being misused as SF properly states.
Score: -1
|I think it has.. i see so many people complain about bugs in beta versions.
Score: -1
|all things do transcend.
perhaps, beta is no longer a viable term and time to put it to rest like betamax.
however, the question remains if beta news will ever transcend into alpha news.
pehaps, it depends on the leadership and will continue to be wimpynews?
Score: -3
|Did anyone else think of Robotech when they saw the word "Beta"?
Score: 0
|I could swear someone here wrote this exact article about a year ago.
Score: -2
|that article was in beta... news. ;)
Score: 3
|Well Google mail was in beta for how many years ? lol
Score: 0
|My personal definitions:
- Alpha: Not yet feature complete, may contain major bugs that stop major features from working. However usually there are no bugs that prevent the program from at least starting up and performing it's main function.
- Beta: Feature complete, but there still may remain known bugs. Most are minor, with most or all known major bugs fixed before "beta" status.
- Gamma/Release Candidate: All known bugs have been fixed, and a public (or wider-scope) release is used to do a last check for bugs. RCs have no "RC" branding so if an RC is decided to be bug free enough to be released as final, the RC itself does not need to be recompiled or repacked into an installer. If bugs are found another RC will be released with those fixed, to repeat the testing process usually.
- Delta/Final Release: The last RC to be approved as bug free, or at least free of any bugs that prevent the program's use. Sometimes a team is pressed for time or a bug may be difficult to locate and minor enough that the team does not want fixing it to hold up the release.
Microsoft tends to s*** their definitions BACK one I've noticed... their betas feel like alphas (new features still being added up to the rc), their rcs feel like betas, and it sometimes takes until a service pack to get what I would consider to be a "final release" quality build.
Score: 6
|Wonder why you were downvoted? good post. I agree 100% on the Microsoft comment. Even Windows 7 is released with some fairly eye-opening bugs reported publicaly months ago, drivers that just don't work (even though they promised they would,) and glaring omissions from what was promised.
Score: -1
|Hey! Even this article seems "beta". I can't wait for final RTM gold new-in-box.
Score: -1
|Though I don't have as much vitriol as those before me, I think the problem is that many lines are blurred, just as nomenclature for software you speak of.
To me (as one of those who remember how special I thought I was when I got to beta test stuff like Lotus AmiPro, and the rest of the bundle) beta still means unfinished, not ready for the idiot user market quite yet.
But I think the majority of readers here are probably younger than I, and tire of the journeys down memory lanes they are not interested in anyway.
I do know that I really do think that there are not clear enough lines when categorizing software, as when I was younger. When I started out, on my 286-12MHz machine, there was freeware, shareware, and paid software. Today, I feel it is imperative to add nagware, as there are some titles I've tried, having seen them on betanews, and found out that, though free, every startup is another nag for purchase - very bad taste in my book.
Also, for those who wish to differentiate, open source versus simple freeware that is owned by the author could be shown.
Not trying to damn with faint praise, but until this site becomes as annoying as PCWorld, I''ll continue to visit.
Score: 2
|Here's a thought:
Let's just put the "Viewpoint" articles on hold for a little while...
In fact, lets put an indefinite moratorium on them....or better yet, make a child site, "BetaViews" and post them there so that those of us who really don't give a crap don't accidentally mistake them as "useful" and click on them.
Please?
Score: -8
|Or how about like a columns view sorted by feature, rumor, viewpoint and news?
Score: 0
|Only if they appear on separate feeds. :)
Score: -1
|This might as well be a Opinion/Editorial site the way it's going. As far as I know, beta test software was never confused with new software.
Maybe, they could rename it "whatithinkabouttheindustry.com".
Score: 0
|PC_Tool.."so that those of us who really don't give a crap don't accidentally mistake them as "useful" and click on them."
But you would click on them !
Score: 1
|Sturgess:
Only because the feed doesn't filter out "viewpoint" articles.
Score: 1
|I remember when BetaNews meant something to me. Now it's a mess of advertising and articles, much like TomsHardware. It's lost it's focus.
Score: -2
|johnfinn68 "Now it's a mess of advertising and articles, much like TomsHardware."
The fact that you took the time, and trouble to post is I'm sure much appreciated. Will you be doing this on a regular basis, or is this just a one off ? Seem to remember someone rambling on about Toms Hardware before, was that you ?
Score: 0
|I've rambled about Tom's Hardware, but on another forum, 5 years ago. That the site still exists surprises me, and betanews is NOWHERE near the downfall of quality that site had.
Score: -1
|I remember, "back in the day"when I usedf to also "professionally beta test" software. I beta tested REAL beta software, win98 before there was a win98, OS/2 warp server for eBusiness from IBM, and a rather huge list of software, games and operating systems for companies both big and small. Back then, it was a selective group that got to test the software before it became available for the consumers. I used to keep 20 pc's of various hardware configurations and a small staff just for this purpose. We ran the software through our in house, closed loop trials, each team member getting a few days on each configuration, running the software and/or OS through a gauntlet of "in house" designed tests based on 100+ years combined real world experience of the team in the real world of consumer computing.
My team were all ex- pc techs (or at least still working as pc-techs), with many years experience fixing problems consumers got themselves into.
Life was good. After the testing cycles were completed we got free software and/or Operating Systems.
Beta's back then were really Betas, not existing consumer software upgrades. There were a LOTTA issues and I and my team took pride in LOOKING for issues and working with the developers to resolve the issues.
Now today, both alpha and real beta cycles are done completely in house and the betas we OCCASIONALLY see available for public testing are really just pre-release software... a final quick check to see if the software will preform as expected in the real world, as well as to get [1] consumer feedback on the desire for said software and [2] to assist in making a pricing structure based on [1].
I am ashamed these days to be known as a beta tester as today, being a beta tester means you paid money to get GA software before anyone else.
Score: 4
|You've got a point. We're living in an age where non-free tech previews are called "Gran Turismo Prologue", and new-gen harddisk-based console games are released in beta state until a patch gets uploaded a few weeks later.
Score: 0
|alpha is the new beta... ;) well, it may as well be
beta lost its way thanks to the web2.0 so called 'tech savvy' crowd, the tech savvy part is debatable...
google didn't help with its gmail bulls*** which should of been out of beta long ago
its just 'cooler' to use beta software, yeah its cool ;) til s*** doesn't work properly and you have to hunt for bugs (which isn't always easy tracking down patterns on the user side)
i guess this is why most devs and companies opt for a 'managed beta group' because they know the majority using beta products will have no clue how to troubleshoot/report issues and blame Windows ;)
so yeah, i stand by what i said i guess, alpha is the new beta lol
btw, for as long as i can remember there has been 'preview' software, i don't think thats Microsofts unique concept ;P if anything... i think Microsoft uses 'beta' most correctly as opposed to everyone
Score: 1
|