you are too missing the point... if C1 wants (otherwise why come inviting ?) ___mass testing__ (also marketing tool to keep users happy, yes) for a "public beta" version by people who typically do not do "NDA beta" testing (that is naturally, one can logically assume, after some "internal beta" testing by trusted beta testers) then do not come verbally after somebody posted a question/issue which is not something ruining P1's business...
and this is not somehow prevents "certain level of active/structured feedback" - what do you think P1 people are doing here in the "official" capacity ? they also collect feedback and structure it themselves for the company (I hope so).
my point is - this kind/stage of "beta" testing shall not be under such "NDA" terms, unlike the stage before it... call it "release candidate" if you want then
Hi,
I disagree with your take on it, and I think I do understand what it's about.
I agree that this has an open invitation aspect to it, but then those who wish to participate must follow the rules. I do not know the full T&Cs, so I cannot judge all that's said in the T&Cs. Maybe people are required to sign a formal NDA, maybe they are just told that they have to abide or risk getting excluded.
The public Betas you are thinking of are indeed of a more promotional nature, but can also easily fail to deliver meaningful feedback (beyond that a feature doesn't work, on a specific hardware configuration). I'm also not sure if an Adobe CC should not be considered as indeed a public (paid) Beta, but that's something for another thread.
Because different hardware can generate different issues, and challenges and opportunities, it's clever to involve more that the usual few suspects. I've only too often seen software mostly tested by Mac OS Beta testers (because for some deluded assumption they are considered more relevant), to discover that the larger numbers of Windows users get confronted with poorly tested features upon release.
So I see the open invitation for participation as an attempt to get more useful/diverse feedback. Had they wanted to use it for promotion, then the NDA terms would not be there to begin with. All IMHO of course.
Cheers,
Bart
