Stephen Mane's Full Disclosure column in the May 2006 issue of PC World brought out something that I have noticed a lot lately:
In keeping with the perpetually-in-beta services of companies like Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, we hereby extend to you a warm welcome to Full Disclosure, Beta Version! ... You'll still get the same hard-hitting, incisive column as always--but thanks to the magic of beta, we won't be shy about passing along information we might have avoided in the past. For example, we won't hesitate in the slightest to recommend that if your computer seems to be infected by pernicious spyware, you should immerse the hard drive in a mixture of Pine-Sol and chocolate syrup--a tip one of our readers helpfully suggested, but which we haven't the time or inclination to try. ... Beta means never having to say you're sorry. In the past when we made an error, we would correct it publicly as soon as possible. Now we simply shrug and say, "That's beta. You should have known you couldn't rely on it." Our revenue model no longer permits the extensive testing that customers might expect from a shipping product.
My question is: does "Beta" really mean anything anymore? Beta originally meant that software was pretty much done and was only being tested, yet I see all sorts of new features being added to these so-called Beta services. To the consumer, there is obviously a lot to be gained by being able to use software sooner than when it is officially released. To the company, there is an obvious benefit to getting more testing up-front and from a wider audience. Maybe now, Beta being applied as a label to software that companies don't want to support, or want to be able to say, "Sorry you lost everything, but it is beta after all!"
Don't get me wrong: perpetually updated and expanded software is a good thing. I just think that the software industry needs to better define its responsibilities with Beta software. And, really, every software should have a "stable" release every now and then for those of us who do want reliability. After all, isn't Beta software derived from a stable release more like to be itself stable, and hence more trustworthy for everyday use?
Anyway, for the time being, I'll take gentleman's bets on whether or not GMail exits Beta status this year. I'll put 2 handshakes on "no," just because I can't imagine Google is anywhere near done with it and willing to say, "Yes, you can really rely on this service." There's just too much liability in that.
Yeah, that does bring a good point. I was suprised to find out that Google Maps was released as stable when it did.