Posterous is Not in beta

> Fuck no. "Beta" is just an excuse to release buggy software and not have to take responsibility for it.

Fuck no. Under conventional ("software engineering") definition, beta is a stage when a product may be missing few features (e.g. complete help system), but when you can already show it to the public. Unstable versions or those missing major features are labeled as alphas if they are released outside of the development or QA. These are typically released in a restricted fashion and are not available to a general public.

I think it is stand-up that Posterous doesn't hide behind "Beta" when something goes wrong. At the same time, the service is not as mature or robust as, say, WordPress. This makes a lot of sense since Posterous is a very recent startup.

Maybe they're in gamma? Maybe, like Hadoop, they're version 0.X? I'm sure rantfoil can enlighten us.

Beta is a good marketing device. It makes people think they are getting something "Hot off the press".

I don't use it myself, but I can see why some others might.

It's just another meaningless buzzword at the end of the day.

TicketStumbler was in private beta for a month or so, but we never did get around to putting the fancy tag on our logo...

I don't think Posterous is in Beta or Gamma or Epsilon or any other nonsense. It's just... Posterous!

That seems a bit silly. What is wrong with testing an application that is not yet 100% finished?

i once felt the same way. it's important to note that "beta" isn't just limited to code, especially if you're building something technically solid yet "experimental" in design (i.e. involving complex algorithms or even game mechanics).

I'm in Lambda.

I think "beta" gets a bad rap nowadays because everyone uses it. I mean, GMail has been in "beta" since it launched!

Beta doesn't mean your code is bad, it just means you're not at "version 1.0". There is nothing wrong with launching your app in beta for a few months.

Being in beta can mean so many things. One good way to use it is define a stage where you're looking for testers prior to launch. Some set ups need to be tested by a number of testers larger than "a handful of friends". They will suggest usability improvements, suggest features, spot typos, break things you didn't think could be broken, etc.

Not to mention that if you impress your beta testers, you'll have them acting like your marketing force at launch.

In the end, a well-run beta can do wonders to the quality of the launched software. So please don't go poo-pooing beta testing. Yes it's an abused term but it's still a good thing for those that know how to do it.

See this passage on BETA stages by 37signals:

http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch15_Better_Not_Beta.php

I agree. I think beta should mean "Not all functionality is complete" as opposed to "Not all functionality is working". There is no excuse to release buggy software. None.

Yeah, it's weird, how people even use the terms pre-alpha, alpha, beta, or beta invite-only. It just seems that if people can get to it, then it's public.