To the Web 2.0 crowd: I'd like to have a few words with you.
We're well into January, and I'm guessing that by now you've probably ditched your New Year's resolutions or, at least, are "reconsidering" their feasibility. Don't worry because I have a new one for you.
You're going to get your site out of beta this year.
I know it sounds impossible. You've probably come to rely on those four little letters, positioned snugly next to your site's cerulean-and-pink logo. To you, it's a reassurance. It means it's OK if the photo upload tool occasionally times out, if the YouTube embed codes aren't quite working yet, if the Google Maps mashups sometimes display Saskatchewan instead of San Francisco.
It's OK, you tell yourself, because there are a ton of new Web services out there that proudly tout their beta labels. Like Gmail, for example. It's one of Google's foremost success stories. It's been in beta since its 2004 launch. And that beta label is convenient because Gmail is still
having issues, most notably the
occasional outage but also some data problems. Lost all your address book contacts? Oops, blame the beta.
I haven't really been sure what to make of companies' insistence on keeping their products in beta. To me, it seems like a convenient way to avoid taking responsibility for technical issues. But I wanted to talk to an insider, so I dialed up one of the new-media entrepreneurs in my address book: Dina Kaplan, co-founder and chief operating officer of the New York-based video-blog hosting site Blip.tv. (It's in beta.) She reinforced my impression, at least at first.
"It's a wonderful cop-out," she said. "If a tiny feature doesn't work, or if someone has a minute problem with something, you can just say, 'Oh, we're in beta.'"
It's a wonderful cop-out. If a tiny feature doesn't work, or if someone has a minute problem with something, you can just say, 'Oh, we're in beta.'
--Dina Kaplan,
co-founder and COO,
Blip.tv
But, Kaplan explained to me, being in a perpetual state of development is a fixture of the new Internet and it's quite likely here to stay.
"What's happened is that software development for the Web is very different now than it's been in the past. In the past, you'd be a six-month or year-long cycle. When you launched something, it would be perfect, or you'd at least hope it would be perfect. Now the launch is done in a much more iterative way."
I understand the importance of getting out a preliminary version of a site as quickly as possible. Internet start-ups sprout up with the speed and spontaneity of mushrooms after a rainstorm. For example, Kaplan said a fledgling version of Blip.tv launched within days of the initial idea's conception. If a small company decided to wait until its product was 100 percent ready before revealing it to the world, it would be taking a serious risk: another start-up could beat it to the punch, or worse, Google or Yahoo could launch a similar service that munches up that open niche of Web space as quickly as a rabbit eating those mushrooms. (For the bunny's sake, I hope they aren't poisonous.)
Here???s the catch. In the world of developers and entrepreneurs, "beta" may be synonymous with a state of constant evolution. But in the world of Web-application and social-media enthusiasts (myself included), "beta" means, "If something screws up, it's not really our fault." This is why the techies should consider weaning themselves off beta status.
After a few years, claiming that your Web site still can't be considered "full" gets a little silly. If the "iterative Web" is here to stay, which I believe it is, that philosophy might as well be applicable to launched-in-full sites as well. There's nothing wrong with an out-of-beta site getting a few tweaks, some new features, or even a facelift. Dropping beta status is a sign that a product's creators have confidence in it, that they believe in its present stability and future growth potential, that they're willing to establish it as a legitimate fixture of the Internet rather than a possible casualty of the potential Bubble 2.0.
(Hey, Google, why don't you show us that you have some faith in Gmail?)
And Kaplan, despite founding a new-media company that's had its service in beta for more than two years, acknowledges that there's some merit to removing that little crutch. "At a certain point you should probably take that 'beta' off because it just becomes this self-reinforcing thing," she said. "You kind of get caught up in the flexibility of the beta term."
Once you've dragged your product out of beta, you can move on to a few other resolutions, such as dropping the term "2.0" from your vocabulary while making sure you stop overusing the term "widget."
And a belated happy new year to one and all.
Biography Caroline McCarthy is a CNET News.com reporter in New York, where she covers high-tech culture.
Yes, "beta" can be perceived as a crutch. However, it could also be perceived as an invitation to provide suggestions and feedback regarding a site's performance. For example, RankAMovie.com is constantly evolving based on both the developers and the feedback by users.
Finalized versions may feel to the general public user as a "distant", unreachable entity that does not want to hear comments and suggestions. So the "beta" might indicate an interest in improving by way of public feedback.
I don't think the word "BETA" is necessary for input. I think as long as you make it clear their input is wanted. Making sure their are several means to contact the site programmers and showing those improvements in action is more than sufficient.
The "beta" badge is good for new web sites with new and unique features that are in current development and testing stages, however it should not become part of the logo.
Seeing "beta" gives an impression of... "oh this is new, let me check it out", while at the same time also giving out an impression of just another web2.0 company who might not be here for the long run.
The bottom line is to use beta when needed, not as an excuse for bugs.
And as mighty and tech development savvy as Google is... I think Gmail should have dropped the "beta" badge at least a year ago... from my point of view, Gmail hasn't really had any big or drastic changes in a while worth keeping it in beta.
I agree that claiming "BETA" status does not mean people are going to provide you more feedback or comments. As long as you give people a place to comment... then they will, if they want. We have all seen those little comment boxes at restaurant asking us to "tell us how we did". An lo and behold they arent in Restaurant 2.0 BETA status.
If anything the BETA moniker may prevent people from commenting. "Oh well it is in beta, maybe it will be fixed next time I log in."
I can understand running a perpetual BETA site if you have a non-beta version of your site as well. Being a developer myself I understand the interative nature of advanced web sites. But come on people... at some point your *new* services will be completed. Then it's time to move your upgrade projects into a change management scheme.
Just wondering, whatever happened to the rest of the Greek alphabet? Alpha and Beta are just too boring to remain part of the Web 2.0 lexicon. Maybe in Web 3.0 we can look forward to sites being in "Chi" or, dare I say it, "Omega" status! At the moment, my site is currently in Rho, but we're looking to move to Sigma very soon.
Ah, I remember those heady days of Omicron so well... And don't get me started about the Kappa version. What a nightmare that week was!
I completely agree with the author's view of the wore Beta in connection with software, whether it be shrink-wrapped or an intangible internet service. Gmail is one of the best internet "applications" I've ever used. While I have not had any data loss or concern about my privacy (I don't use it liberally for everything on the net...it's more or less my "private" account, for now...), I know there have been some that have had that problem. Having said that, like the author points out, it's been around for years now. Doesn't Google think it's time to make it a fully-fledged, established application? Why does Microsoft have these release to manufacture days and all this media hype about a new version of Windows, for instance? Why not call the next windows Windows 2010 (beta) and just leave it that way...that way, Microsoft will never be liable for any data loss or security breach...heck, why bother putting out updates, just release a new beta version of the OS. We all know that that proposal is a ridiculous idea--and so is keeping a website in beta for 2+ years.
When I see 'Beta' attached to some web app or service, I don't immediately think, "OOH! Something new and hip and exciting!" Usually I think, "Dammit, I'd love to use this but I don't want to deal with all the bugs. I'll just wait till it's out of beta." I have never downloaded an iteration of Firefox or OpenOffice while it was in beta, and I recently decided against using an online backup service because it's software was in beta.
People need to start considering the fact that their beta labels might actually be scaring off customers with its threat of bugginess and not attracting them with the promise of something new.
I agree with Caroline's take on the usage of Beta in the web world today. In fact, I wrote my own post on the same subject a while back. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://splashcastmedia.com/beta-testing-in-the-web-20-world" target="_newWindow">http://splashcastmedia.com/beta-testing-in-the-web-20-world</a>
SplashCast is launching our media syndication player on the 31st. Now I am wondering if it's a good idea to have a Beta disclaimer by our logo... even if our product is truly what I would call a Beta product!
I agree with Caroline's take on the usage of Beta in the web world today. In fact, I wrote my own post on the same subject a while back. <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://splashcastmedia.com/beta-testing-in-the-web-20-world" target="_newWindow">http://splashcastmedia.com/beta-testing-in-the-web-20-world</a>
SplashCast is launching our media syndication player on the 31st. Now I am wondering if it's a good idea to have a Beta disclaimer by our logo... even if our product is truly what I would call a Beta product!
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
Finalized versions may feel to the general public user as a "distant", unreachable entity that does not want to hear comments and suggestions. So the "beta" might indicate an interest in improving by way of public feedback.
Just my 2-cents
Seeing "beta" gives an impression of... "oh this is new, let me check it out", while at the same time also giving out an impression of just another web2.0 company who might not be here for the long run.
The bottom line is to use beta when needed, not as an excuse for bugs.
And as mighty and tech development savvy as Google is... I think Gmail should have dropped the "beta" badge at least a year ago... from my point of view, Gmail hasn't really had any big or drastic changes in a while worth keeping it in beta.
If anything the BETA moniker may prevent people from commenting. "Oh well it is in beta, maybe it will be fixed next time I log in."
I can understand running a perpetual BETA site if you have a non-beta version of your site as well. Being a developer myself I understand the interative nature of advanced web sites. But come on people... at some point your *new* services will be completed. Then it's time to move your upgrade projects into a change management scheme.
Ah, I remember those heady days of Omicron so well... And don't get me started about the Kappa version. What a nightmare that week was!
We all know that that proposal is a ridiculous idea--and so is keeping a website in beta for 2+ years.
People need to start considering the fact that their beta labels might actually be scaring off customers with its threat of bugginess and not attracting them with the promise of something new.
SplashCast is launching our media syndication player on the 31st. Now I am wondering if it's a good idea to have a Beta disclaimer by our logo... even if our product is truly what I would call a Beta product!
SplashCast is launching our media syndication player on the 31st. Now I am wondering if it's a good idea to have a Beta disclaimer by our logo... even if our product is truly what I would call a Beta product!