4 ms·
I don't agree with the content. The whole premise is to mischaracterize what an MVP is supposed to be. The figure they have there where they compare a half car
by glofish 7y ago
I don't agree with the content. The whole premise is to mischaracterize what an MVP is supposed to be.
The figure they have there where they compare a half car with no wheels (MVP) to the scooter (SLC) is quite telling.
That half car would never be considered a Minimally Viable Product, a half car with no wheels does not work at all - how is that viable? The scooter would be an MVP.
- danShumway 7y agoThe Spotify team is explicitly saying in that chart, "example 1 is not an MVP, example 2 is." And then WP Engine is turning around and saying, "see, example 1 shows why MVPs don't work. Instead you should build example 2 which is a totally different concept we invented." I don't know why, but that really rubs me the wrong way. How does someone look at a two-diagram infographic and take away the exact opposite lesson that it's trying to teach?
- IshKebab 7y agoI think they're right, but they've just phrased it in a way that means lots of pedants will say "well that isn't an MVP then is it?". It's more or less the No True Scotsman fallacy. "No true MVP has too few features - otherwise it wouldn't be viable!" In any case I think it would be much clearer to say "Most 'MVPs' have few too features be actually be viable, so they aren't actually MVPs." I think that is true.