4 ms·
And the hordes clamoured in unison "You need to have an MVP. If you are not embarrassed by your first release, then you have released too late!!". And the deve
by cyberferret 9y ago
And the hordes clamoured in unison "You need to have an MVP. If you are not embarrassed by your first release, then you have released too late!!". And the developer released his Minimum Viable Product unto the public. And the hordes were dismayed, and they reeled back uttering "That is butt ugly!". And the developer was dejected and wandered away to work on something else.
In all seriousness - mixed messaging as seen on this thread is why I believe most (myself included) eschew the whole 'MVP' thing and try to polish products before release.
- freedomben 9y agoExactly. It drives me nuts in startup world the "push for MVP" or critical path first -> release -> iterate/improve, yet when the product gets released it is criticized for rough edges, bugs, but most appallingly missing features.
- setr 9y agoWell yeah, users want the full fucking product, not the MVP. MVPs happen to be an (apparently) efficient model for startups, but its not like anyone actually wants it. Your users might grudgingly accept your half-finished, buggy, unoptimized MVP because nothing better is available to them, but how could you possibly expect anyone to be happy with this? MVPs are pushed by businesses, not by consumers. But on the market-scale, it also pushes MVPs (because you get bonuses from being first-to-market and such). But no individual consumer goes around saying "yeah I'd love to be promised the world, and instead recieve a millionth of it". Of course you're going to be criticized by the people you've given hope to, only to let down with bug report #985