Beta is frequently not used as a badge of courage–it’s used as an excuse. Many companies used it as I’ve described it.

Few, such as Critical Mass, use it in the right way–a way to test ideas and notions and to see what sticks with a limited release and/or audience.

Even so, the post is clearly pointing out that it’s time to be truthful to ourselves and our users and our users will understand that the world of “constant change” is before them. And for them.

And they can be forgiving of mistakes if we let them.

Beta badges aren’t worthy of that.

The ‘beta’ label is the way to differentiate “old school” from “new school”, it was the precursor to “2.0″ as a label.

The label had meaning at one time. Perhaps the need for that distinction will wane, but the distinction is not driven by the point you raised.

What is the cost to better communication–and more honest communication?

I suggest that users are more forgiving than we think. I suggest that they are smarter and that we’re not always supplying them with the clarity that they want and need.

I also suggest that the more users know, the more users will appreciate mis-steps in the wrong direction.

Slapping a Beta label on something is a cop-out.

In any case, I’ve always found that it is more expensive to lie in the long run than it is to tell the truth immediately.

There’s a cost to what you’re talking about. The ‘optimal’ is in a constantly moving balance between exchange of value. If ‘some’ value can be added while what the ‘better’ value might be can be discovered, all the better.

The real issue is in not paying attention at all, not the early release.

Fight the battles where they deserve to be fought.

I suggest this is not one of them.