It use to be that a software's Beta release was - in fact - Beta. Without going into too much technical details about a typical release cycle, most commonly are familiar with alpha releases, followed by beta releases. In fact, there's often other releases going on before any external releases (called internal releases). Depending on the type, scope, and audience of particular project, official internal releases may or may not be a part of the cycle of releases.

When it comes to external releases, however, they're rather loosely defined as alpha, beta, followed by an official release. But these days, it seems there is no official release, there is only alpha, beta, and then "Beta".

To be clear on my terms, an alpha release is typically something which can be used, but will have many glitches, and many unresolved bugs and issues. Some which are work items, some which will be tagged as features, and put off until later. The rule of thumb is, if you find a bug in an alpha release, that's what's to be expected. File a bug.

A beta release is when most of the critical bugs have been resolved. These are the "blocking" bugs - bugs that can affect productivity in other areas, cause unexpected results, or renders a program otherwise unusable. A user can go from end-to-end, in most of the flows. Take, for example, an email program. A user should be able to send emails, receive emails, write new ones, delete old ones. They should be able to close the program, reopen it, etc. This is otherwise known as everyday use. But also in beta releases, are features within the program that make the program better than others. This could be speed, memory management, etc. A beta program can be used as an official release, but the beta comes with the knowledge that if something doesn't work, you shouldn't hold it against the developers. It's still in Beta. File a bug.

In an official release people expect no bugs. Unfortunately most people aren't aware that it's a near impossibility to create bug-less code, or ever resolve all bugs. Afterall, some bug fixes often cause bugs in other areas. An official release really means that most major bugs have been resolved (there are still always some major bugs that are not always critical - or sometimes they just haven't been found...), and the company/developers are willing to stand fully behind their product. They'll continue working on the bugs, and add in new features, and will bundle this up in a patch/service pack, and release that (sometimes with alpha/beta/official releases of their own).

So what is "Beta"? "Beta" originated from the misunderstanding that an official release should be flawless. It's a result of a user's frustration with bugs in code that seem to take a long time to fix - if they ever do get fixed. "Beta" is also marketing, and very good marketing at that. So what exactly is it?

"Beta" is an official release, with the word "beta" permanently tacked on to the logo.

Why do this? One would think that with an official release sounding so - pardon the pun - official, that a company benefits. That has turned out to not be the case. Perception goes a long way in any marketing campaign, but in an industry where public opinion causes people to swear by products, and get into long arguments at coffee shops that last hours, perception is very important.

So what is the perception that comes with "Beta"? It's the reassurance to customers that the program is still under active development. It's also a bit of a cop-out. One can't be put to much blame for bugs and other issues, if the product is still in Beta. And because developers know there will always be bugs, "Beta" is a protective umbrella. In what is otherwise considered the maintenance time of the development cycle, this "Beta" gives assurances to customers that we're still actively working on the product, when the reality is, development slows down drastically. Unless a major and critical bug pops up, minor bugs are resolved when they're resolved - with little motivation to ever resolve them.

Take bug 1156 from the Mozilla browser, a browser which has recently had it's 3rd Major official release, with numerous other minor official releases. The bug was filed in 1998. When was it resolved? 2008. ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1156 )

Now, Mozilla/Firefox doesn't use the everlasting "Beta" title. I would argue that the label of "open source" often carries a similar perception as "Beta" - customers and users are willing to be a little more forgiving to something that is open-source, as they are with Beta, either because open-source usually means free (free, afterall, being the preferred alternative to not-free), or because the perception of developers behind an open source project is one which is less corporate, and less driven by capital.

And that's why I find myself often coming across logos with "Beta" tacked on (often in a bold red font, no less) - despite my havin g used the website/service/program for a few years now.

At some point, I wonder if the perception of "Beta" will ever change. Frankly, many large, multi-billion dollar companies use the "Beta" excuse. It has yet to be a sign of a lack of productivity from the company, but perhaps that will change. All it really takes is one competing product to be released officially, and then for the fan boys to make fun of the other for still being in Beta.