daringfireball.net — In what way does Disco, or any other app that is labeled “beta” but is available for sale to the public, deserve to be cut any critical slack? You can’t “semi-release” your 1.0 just because you want it out there but aren’t yet finished. Being semi-released is like being semi-pregnant.
Nov 14, 2006 View in Crawl 4
lo0olNov 14, 2006Submitter
A particular gem:"Using “beta” as a badge of honor for released commercial software makes no more sense than using “buggy” in the same context, and it makes no more sense as an excuse, either."I think this is where some of the backlash against "web 2.0" sites (if you buy into the hypespeak) comes from. Google is, obviously, the clear example here, with half of its major products seemingly in perpetual beta. I suppose the web allows you to get away with more initial bugs than traditional software just because you can make immediate changes (and I know 37signals roughly advocated something similar to this in Getting Real), but there's a point where you're hurting the quality of your app just to get it out the door.
gaucho4Nov 15, 2006
You're paying for the final product at a discount if you want to beta test it. That's why it's currently available. Due to the popular demand to try it out, the Disco team has released it to the general public. Tons of people are enjoying how the product is coming along. If you don't want a beta product and don't want to beta test it, wait a couple weeks when 1.0 comes out. I'm really getting sick of all the whiners.
jimzipNov 15, 2006
That's the thing though lo0ol, they aren't hurting the quality of the app by calling it beta.There may be a hundred reasons why the developers of Disco decided to release it when they did and with a 'beta' tag. Perhaps they needed the extra cashflow to continue development, or maybe they simply wanted feedback.Usually I agree with Gruber, but not in this case.I believe it's totally up to the developer to put a tag like 'beta' on their software, and not cop so much flak for doing it. In this case especially so, because there was incentive, a lower pricetag and the promise of upgrade. What's the harm in paying for software you know will include additional features in the future? Saying the 'beta' tag might as well say 'buggy' or that it's an excuse is redundant too. The web is a different animal to other marketing machines, and like it or not, a 'beta' symbol to many people now represents improvement, and yes, also bugs. Deal with it. I'm sure when the developers feel they have a rounded application they'll remove the tag.I honestly don't know why Disco is under so much fire.Did Transmit get this much crap when it had a 'beta' tag? You paid for that also, what's the difference?The fact that the guys working on Disco added a pleasant skin and animations to the app is simply testament to how enthused they are with their product. It's great to see effort and time being spent on aesthetics, and why not use it as a selling point? Like I said, it's their product, let them do what they want with it, nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy it.Disco is a neat little app, that's both functional, and nice to look at, and it's refreshing to see.Nobody's forcing you to purchase it, so get over your qualms, let the developers know about the bugs, and let's all enjoy burning discs.Jimzip :D
msgyrdNov 15, 2006
Blogspam
nicuNov 15, 2006
The problem isn't that they're charging its that people are paying for "BETA" software. You have got to be kidding me that you're actually upset about this. If someone sold you a car and said it wasn't fully built yet would you still buy it? Yeah the company is making a bad decision in selling something that's not complete, but its ultimately the buyer's fault for spending time and money without thinking.Other people will always do stupid things (like release bad software) you have to be smart enough to protect yourself and see that signs like "Beta" means don't buy or install it if you expect it to work.
mikewhalleyNov 15, 2006
Beta = In test phase = Not fit for commerical release.Period.
angelpNov 15, 2006
If they want people to "test" it, they shouldn't be charging for it. On the other side, people shouldn't be stupid enough to pay for beta software and then get upset because there are bugs.
natefishlerNov 15, 2006
Why is it that because 37Signals says something idiots take it as gospel? You people are retarded. Anyone who has taken a software engineering class or studied minimal UML, etc. knows that Beta testing is normal. "But this is a new way of software development blah blah blah." My answer to all of you who say that is this "You are retarded. Go get a degree and then lets talk about it."
infmNov 15, 2006
As a software engineer (with a degree), the use of beta in a software title that is not being constantly updated pisses me off. It defeats the purpose of the term. Why not just tack Alpha on the front of it too? Sure, alpha implies a buggy internal test phase, but who cares right? While we're at it, lets just start tacking random words onto the title of a piece of software that are wrong, because it's cool to do so. It even proves that we're semi-computer literate and have a vague knowledge of the software development process! Wow. If it's beta, it's beta. Beta software is not sold because it's not finished (hey, maybe Windows should be labeled beta all the time - now that would actually make sense). Beta software is not given to the public for any length of time without constant updates going on because if its good enough to go to the public with no updates, then by definition, it's not beta at all, is it?