Interpretation of language is the problem here. What is "viable"? What is "minimal"? The author's complaints are that customers are upset with the MVP. Well, t

Interpretation of language is the problem here. What is "viable"? What is "minimal"? The author's complaints are that customers are upset with the MVP. Well, that's because it was so minimal that the customers don't see it as viable. There's not enough viability to make up for the minimalism. Using the product is not a good deal for the customer. So what's the answer the author provides? Use different language that can be misinterpreted. Here's what will happen with SLCs: "Oh, that doesn't have <feature X that 1% of users want, but VP likes>, so it's not COMPLETE yet, so it's not an SLC". "We don't need to add <X> because that's not SIMPLE, so it's not an SLC, just ship without <critical feature that 90% of users need>". "You know, it's good, but I just don't love it yet. Can you just give it some more work so that it's an SLC?" I've seen it happen. "Minimum LOVABLE product" made it's rounds at my company once. Yes, they called them "MLPs" having no idea about My Little Pony or the various communities who care deeply about such things. It did not bring us joy. The true answer lies not in changing the words but in deeply defining what you mean and getting everyone to agree on them. It means working closely with your customer and asking them if you're ready to launch with this minimal set of features (for now). It means earning trust and quickly iterating based on feedback. Buzzwords gonna buzz. Ignore them. Just sit down with your customer and solve their problems.