I would say that the answer to your last question should be a resounding "yes". The whole point of the "beta" label is to alert potential users that the produc

I would say that the answer to your last question should be a resounding "yes". The whole point of the "beta" label is to alert potential users that the product is not completely stable, but is in some usable state. The problem is not so much that the service was not 100% reliable, but that the NYT readers expected it to be and relied critically upon it. As most Linux and 'BSD users have come to learn, "beta" means just that: not ready for critical use. The user gains some privileges, like being able to use "bleeding-edge" software or to get a valuable service for free, and in return they sacrifice the stability and reliability that comes with time-tested software; all that as they actually are an integral piece to testing that software. Without such a beta stage, the whole rapid development movement would fail as projects get mired in extensive internal testing stages. Your GMail comment especially strikes me, as I hadn't considered that before. Perhaps they grew much faster than anticipated and are still working on stability issues, and the "losing my emails" scenario may not be far off the mark. By attaching the "beta" label to their service, they can probably avoid any liability that may arise if such an event did occur.