> running a course is an MVP and delivering a meal is an MVP. Yes I too was hoping for something a bit more radically different to my existing definition of wh

> running a course is an MVP and delivering a meal is an MVP. Yes I too was hoping for something a bit more radically different to my existing definition of what an MVP is. I definitely agree that it's easy to over engineer MVPs - I'm guilty of that myself, a lot, but many/most of the "MVT's" described here really just sound like non over-engineered MVPs. Nevertheless, the article is still useful as a reminder to really pair it down to the absolute bare essentials at the beginning. So essentially what we end up with is a "minimal viable MVP"! I was curious to see no mention of doing any kind of research via some sort of survey - to not necessarily canvass potential customers on whether they'd buy the product, but more around the problem space, what problems they currently have etc. To me this seems like quite a low-hanging fruit to help validate ideas?