Posted by Hugo Kornelis on 09/18/05 00:15

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:58:23 -0700, DA Morgan wrote:

>Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:39:56 -0700, DA Morgan wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> Anyway, from a commercial point of view, it appears
>>>
>>>>to me that Microsoft is doing the right thing. By making betas of the
>>>>new product available early on, more people get to play it, learn it
>>>>and know it, and will thus be more inclined to deploy it early on.
>>>
>>>Other software companies seem to do well keeping their Betas as Betas.
>>>I don't see SAP or IBM or anyone else thinking what you describe is
>>>ethical.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Since I have never used any Oracle product, I have no experience of they
>>>>run their betas. I would be suprised though, if they never make any betas
>>>>publically available, as most software vendors appear to do that at some
>>>>point in the cycle.
>>>
>>>Never. The vast majority of software companies never make Betas
>>>available to any other than qualified testers that will actuall use
>>>their software for purposes of testing.
>>>
>>>Anyone thinking they can get a copy of Oracle 11 should be prepared to
>>>buy Larry a new boat. I doubt anything less will put it into their
>>>hands today or tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> Hi DA,
>>
>> Did you google for "public beta" before posting this? I got over 2
>> million hits. Just the first two pages had links to public beta programs
>> of (among others) Norton AntiVirus 2006, Novell OpenEnterprise Server,
>> Macromedia Flash Player, IBM Lotus Notes/Domino 7, and many others.
>>
>> These companies apparently take quality serious, and take their
>> customers serious. They use the possibilities Internet offers to ensure
>> that their products are tested by a number of testers, and on a number
>> of configurations, that would never be achieved in a closed beta
>> program.
>>
>> It's sad to learn that Oracle, apparently, still values secrecy over
>> quality.
>>
>> Best, Hugo
>
>Flash Player ... now there's a serious piece of software.
>
>Just kidding. I guess I my views are somewhat outmoded given that I
>deal in large line-of-business commercial applications. Did you find
>any for Oracle? DB2? Informix? Sybase? ... Didn't think so.

Hi DA,

A very short search on Google resulted in a link to an article about the
DB2 public beta program:
http://esj.com/enterprise/article.aspx?EditorialsID=954

I didn't find any for the others, but I only spent about half a minute
trying.

My point is, regardless of which companies do and which don't, that
public beta programs:

a) will attract a much higher number of beta testers than closed beta
programs, even if a high percentage of the beta testers won't really
push the product and/or won't report bugs. Suppose one million people
download the product; 98% of them (attempt to) install and only 25% of
the rest will actively test the product and report bugs. That leaves you
with a total of 245,000 active beta testers. How does that comapre to a
typical closed beta program?

b) will provide prospective customers with a way to comment on new
features before it's too late to change. Closed beta's are typically
only done with the existing user base; getting early feedback from
prospective customers could be extremely valuable in a competitive
market.

c) will also serve as a good way to get potential customers to try the
new features and maybe become interested in the product. In this regard,
a public beta is no different fro a time-limited evaluation edition. Are
they unethical too?

Of course, products that have minimum hardware requirements that costs
thousands of dollars and products that are so complicated that they
require a staff of trained experts to setup and run are not suited for
public beta's. But for a product with the relatively low hardware
requirements and the ease of use of SQL Server, a public beta test is a
great way toa ccomplish the three aforementioned benefits.

Best, Hugo
--

(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)

[Back to original message]