4 ms·

> Thus, the main idea is to create the product that is useful, usable and attractive to the end users. Does this go against the idea of an MVP?

NomDePlum 5y ago
Not sure where you are quoting from, but out of curiosity what part of that description do you think is at odds with the definition of MVP?
- chrischapman 5y ago
  The quote comes from the article but, yeah, I get your point. It just seems to me that "useful, usable and attractive" is more complete than "minimum viable". I've seen a number of posts about the meaning of "minimum" recently (MVT)[1] and this article suggests that you need to go beyond an MVP to get people talking about your product. Maybe I'm over-thinking this? The full quote I'm referring to is: > The main advertisement channel is of course people who are in love with your product. Their sharing activities is the best advertisement. Thus, the main idea is to create the product that is useful, usable and attractive to the end users. And only after that it does make sense to spread the word about something you've done. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28550454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28550454
  - Griffinsauce 5y ago
    You could flip it and challenge what you think is "minimum" - just checking off the bare minimum features may not be the minimum needed for a viable product: something people want to use. MVP is often seen through the lens of tech or resources while you should be looking at it from the user's perspective.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    Makes sense. My hobby project, a search engine, blew up (on its own) in social media a few weeks too early, at a time it was appealing but not really useful, leaving a lot of people trying it out but not many using it. However I do honestly believe more in slow organic growth than expkosive overnight success.

4 ms·

> Thus, the main idea is to create the product that is useful, usable and attractive to the end users. Does this go against the idea of an MVP?

by chrischapman 5y ago

NomDePlum 5y ago
Not sure where you are quoting from, but out of curiosity what part of that description do you think is at odds with the definition of MVP?
- chrischapman 5y ago
  The quote comes from the article but, yeah, I get your point. It just seems to me that "useful, usable and attractive" is more complete than "minimum viable". I've seen a number of posts about the meaning of "minimum" recently (MVT)[1] and this article suggests that you need to go beyond an MVP to get people talking about your product. Maybe I'm over-thinking this? The full quote I'm referring to is: > The main advertisement channel is of course people who are in love with your product. Their sharing activities is the best advertisement. Thus, the main idea is to create the product that is useful, usable and attractive to the end users. And only after that it does make sense to spread the word about something you've done. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28550454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28550454
  - Griffinsauce 5y ago
    You could flip it and challenge what you think is "minimum" - just checking off the bare minimum features may not be the minimum needed for a viable product: something people want to use. MVP is often seen through the lens of tech or resources while you should be looking at it from the user's perspective.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    Makes sense. My hobby project, a search engine, blew up (on its own) in social media a few weeks too early, at a time it was appealing but not really useful, leaving a lot of people trying it out but not many using it. However I do honestly believe more in slow organic growth than expkosive overnight success.