19 May 2004 | arturo said...

Great title to this post!

19 May 2004 | Adam said...

I think a better one would have been, "Oh no, Beta!" :)

19 May 2004 | Anil said...

I think ICQ's permanent beta status sets the precedent for perma-beta status.

19 May 2004 | Vuarnet said...

And then feedmania arrived ;)
http://www.feedmania.com/logo.gif

Agregator/feed reader made in Spanish...

20 May 2004 | vaughn said...

Don't forget the beta Amazon search A9. ( http://a9.com/-/images/beta-a9-logo.gif)

20 May 2004 | Scrivs said...

I agree in that it shows a lack of faith. I mean chicagoist in beta? What do they have to beta test besides the design in different browsers? Seems like too many people are starting to think that just because their sites are labeled "beta" that they can get away with it. I always thought the beta for webpages was the splash page.

Another title could have been "Mo beta blues".

20 May 2004 | Jon Gales said...

It seems like a way to tell the users "don't complain". Friendster has stayed in beta forever. Google was in beta for a while though (I want to say a year or so), so it's possible for things to come out of it :).

20 May 2004 | Submunition Assassin said...

Friends, I do agree that it signifies a lack of faith and a subtle way of saying "feeback not wanted". This is fine, to a degree and I do feel that the concept is being overused.

I have noticed the same trend in a few open source software projects as well. I get so irked when the developers use it as an excuse to jump down the throats of anyone who dare criticize their work, "can't you see it's still in beta???"

An outrage. Now my response has become to automatically think to self, "well, I'll bookmark it and come back later when they get it together." Nobody expects perfect software the first time out, but now a beta label seriously undermines my confidence in the product as well as my willingness to commit to using it.

20 May 2004 | coudal said...

Is it just me, or are we all in beta, all the time?

20 May 2004 | coudal said...

I have another idea about the four sites you mentioned Jason. Maybe they're all in beta because someday they each plan to have a logo that doesn't look like it was done by a high school yearbook committee.

20 May 2004 | jake said...

jeez louise- we've been in beta for exactly one week. it basically means we're working on the link list, and figuring out the posting schedule. relax, my friends.

20 May 2004 | RS said...

Maybe they're all in beta because someday they each plan to have a logo that doesn't look like it was done by a high school yearbook committee.

Zing!

20 May 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Not to beta dead horse, but Google News has been in beta for what seems like eons, although it's probably only been what, a year or two?

20 May 2004 | Don Schenck said...

But ... but ... I *was* on the high school yearbook committee ... so, accordingly, my blog *does* look like ... *sigh*.

I'm changing it to "beta" right now!

20 May 2004 | Tom Keekley said...

Don't forget 'Froogle'! Still beta.

20 May 2004 | Sam Sherwood said...

All of the applications in question are actually pledging for a special online sorority. There are blog pillowfights and buddy lists for talking about boys. At night, there's usually a healthy showing at Beta jello wrestling (but you didn't hear that from me).

Either way, all of my sites are going straight to Gamma. Being in Alpha or Beta is so last blog entry.

20 May 2004 | Bob H. said...

From what I've heard, Orkut should be renamed to Alpha.

20 May 2004 | Bob H. said...

From what I've heard, Orkut should be renamed to Alpha.

Sorry, forgot my e-mail address.

20 May 2004 | Blake Scarbrough said...

coudal said:"Is it just me, or are we all in beta, all the time?"

I would have to agree partially that the web is always in a state of beta. Becuase it is so easy to change, upgrade, and move you can never consider a project done, unless of course you are talking to a client and they need dates and timelines. So maybe beta would be better described a phase.

20 May 2004 | Gordon said...

One of my sites is currently in BETA, it's a weblog directory and i needed to show SOME sort of progress, hence the BETA banner. Not all the functionality worked then (still doesn't) but it's good indication of what is coming.

That's WHY I made it BETA. It will go to Released soon. What I think all the current swath of BETA sites have in common is lack of cut-off. They just keep rolling in new features and are waiting until they get through their initial wishlist to 'release'. Phased releases should be the norm.

20 May 2004 | CM Harrington said...

Beta is the new black.

In this day where version numbers are incremented by a full integer or more every year, but remaining just as bug-ridden or more so than their previous release, people are just slapping down the word "beta" on everything. I call it truth in advertising!

...Unless of course if beta is the new release, does that mean alpha is the new beta?

Beta is now a marketing term. It is used so users can feel "exclusive" or "'1337" because they are trying out something that isn't ready for the public, regardless of whether or not the release is accessible to everyone. The other half is that the companies are getting free user testing. Remember when you had to pay for things like that? Thirdly, Public betas are usually free. When the project finally goes "release", that "free" turns rapidly into "fee".

Marketing people.... blech!

20 May 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I changed my blog (or is it a "plog"??) this morning. Now it says " -- beta".

I'm so cool. Look at me ... admire my coolness.

Me = Cool.

*cough*

21 May 2004 | but that's just me said...

Another alternate title, "Mo' beta."

22 May 2004 | Brian Andersen said...

So true.

Think the mozilla suite - Firefox as a prime example.

I've used firefox 0.8 constantly lately, and it hasn't crashed on me once. IE is in version 6 and crashes way more often.

Stop with the 0.312 releases, say "This is firefox 1, it fucking works."

Because seriously, it does.

24 May 2004 | David S said...

I agree things are often unnecessarily in beta, but Firefox isn't a good example of that. It has a definate roadmap with a definate set of features that are supposed to be in the v1 release and all that. That makes sense.

Putting beta on for the sake of stopping complaints is not. You need to cut things off at a certain point and call it version [1-XX] and save the rest of the goodies for the next version.

24 May 2004 | Benjy said...

Well at least Chicagoist dropped it's Beta tag...

26 May 2004 | Gary said...

'beta' is the new 'shoveling man' under-construction icon.

01 Jun 2004 | JF said...

BTW, Wired News picked up the story.

02 Jun 2004 | matthew said...

i think beta should be redefined to mean, "we haven't figured out HOW we're making money off this, but, man, when we do... "

11 Jun 2004 | Nancy Joyce said...

Why not? Beta is better than nothing :))
Nancy