#Innovative Beta Programs
6 messages in this thread
"Paying to be a beta tester is quite normal in the corporate scene."
Not sure what corporate users you're talking to/about, but in my experience
corporate users don't pay to beta test software. In fact, these days most
corporate sites ask for "pre-release" copies of software that have already
finished beta testing and are either at the "Release Candidate" stage or
are in manufacturing.
We don't beta test software at work unless there is a chance it will make
our standards list. And we sure wouldn't PAY for doing beta test work!
There is 1 Reply.
Brian,
I am not talking about paying extra (well, not usually) but a lot of
companies buy software that is still in BETA for the chance to have early
technology for use and review and the chance to have some input in that
technology. I'm not saying this is the way that *most* beta programs work
but I *am* saying that it is common and certainly ethical. Companies that
are putting software to early use (rather than actually just beta testing
it) often cost the vendor a great deal of money. -=- Jonathan
There are 2 Replies.
Jonathan,
I'd like to put my two cents in on this subject, and also defend Mark from
what I see as unfair criticism. As if he needs help defending himself <g>.
I agree that there's nothing unethical about selling a pre-release version
of software — especially if you have a zillion customers clamoring for it
now. We simply don't need 1,000 beta testers and I doubt Mark does either.
And by the time our own preliminary version began shipping, it was quite
stable and bug free. Bugs happen with "final release" software anyway, no?
Mark hasn't done anything we haven't been doing ourselves for three months.
At the time Mark and I received beta copies of Visual Basic, the only folks
who were truly on top of Windows programming were C programmers who had
been into Windows since version 1.0 or maybe 2.0. Writing low-level code
for Windows is a -lot- of work, the SDK docs are miserable, and CodeView is
a quirky beast at best. As Mark pointed out recently, developing low-level
code for Windows takes about five times longer than similar code for DOS.
So it boils down to this: people who don't want to wait for a final version
don't have to, and people that prefer to wait certainly can. In our case,
we do not consider what we are shipping as being beta software in any way.
And isn't shipping an early version better than having to say endlessly,
"Real Soon Now" or worse, give the appearance of offering vaporware?
–Ethan Winer, Crescent Software
There are 2 Replies.
Ethan,
Thanks!
Mark
Ethan,
Well, I think just about everyone has been "defending" Mark and no
one was attacking him!<g> Quinn posted the query to see how people felt
about that situation, probably because they were considering something
further. I don't think I have read a message (certainly didn't write one)
opposed to Mark's policy here. If people are dyning for the product, a few
bugs won't kill them!<g> Just kidding, a play on words, don't ya know.
Anyway, I think that everyone here is so dependent on your two that
it is highly unlikely that anyone would object to the early release of
software. Especially with such a new product where everyone is so curious.
-=- Jonathan
Well, I can't say it's unethical in any way, but if it is software that
meets the usual criteria for what I think of as beta, well, I don't know
why anybody'd want to pay for its use. Just an opinion.
Paul