4 ms·
All of this could be said without trying to coin a new acronym. MVP already covers these angles, and it feels like a bit of a strawman to claim it doesn't. Th
by dasil003 7y ago
All of this could be said without trying to coin a new acronym. MVP already covers these angles, and it feels like a bit of a strawman to claim it doesn't. The hard part and simultaneously whole point of building an MVP is to figure out the proper scope. This will vary a lot from product to product and in different markets, and there's no magic formula. I don't see how adding new abstract principles helps. Should it be simple, lovable and complete? Well duh.
- kasey_junk 7y agoThe emphasis on complete is a new take. The entire idea of an MVP encapsulates the idea that it will change into something in the future. Just changing the mental goal to something that can live on its own with no further development is an important difference. Does it need a new acronym? I don’t know but I never liked MVP anyway.
- mikeg8 7y agoThe reason shooting for completeness is not ideal is because it’s usually a waste of time. Very rarely can founders guess the compete solution to their customers problem out of the gate. It’s the mismatch between what the company imagines the complete solution should look like versus integrating customer feedback to make “complete” solution more people will pay for.