4 ms·

It seems like a lot of YC companies are just drinking the MVP kool-aid. And there are 400 companies per batch now because they can just play the numbers game: t

by mizzao 5y ago

It seems like a lot of YC companies are just drinking the MVP kool-aid. And there are 400 companies per batch now because they can just play the numbers game: throw them all at the wall and see who sticks. It's a very interesting and nuanced distinction between: "just build something and launch it as soon as possible" ...vs... "think really hard about how to solve a particular problem in a novel way, then build the simplest possible solution that lets you iterate, but no simpler" The most apt analogy for me has been multivariate optimization of a nonconvex function: the MVP is the initialization conditions. If you start near a local maximum then there is no way that hill-climbing (SGD, L-BFGS) will get you to a global maximum. So you need to make sure your starting point (MVP) lets you actually iterate to the global maximum through small local optimizations. A product pivot is basically a random jump in the objective function hoping to get closer to a point where the function's gradient can lead you to a global maximum. We did that with our product and thankfully the new initialization conditions are way better, and we are at a point where we can iterate to PMF. But there was no way we could have done that with our old product. (Here's the story of that pivot: https://parsnip.substack.com/p/a-new-hope https://parsnip.substack.com/p/a-new-hope)

marcosdumay 5y ago
The MVP strategy is entirely about validating your product. Unless you decide it has a good market fit, there is nothing in it telling you how to look for alternatives. There's nothing telling you to go by hill-climbing, or even by any gradient based search at all. What it says is that once you find product-market fit, you don't destroy it by jumping around at random. But at this point, it's about disruption and the Innovator's Dilemma, where you are the incumbent. It's not about starting-up anymore.
rileyphone 5y ago
This is a great analogy, basically plotting startup success on an evolutionary NK landscape [0]. Finding optima rests on a healthy balance of exploration and exploitation, as in the behavior of ant colonies searching for food. Apple has been a good historical model of this in business, though for a startup it's often necessary to keep the chips all in on one product. Ideally though, a pivot isn't a random jump, but is rather guided by an incomplete map of the landscape. Herein lies the value of the MVP, but it's curse is being difficult to throw away, especially once it has some traction. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK_model

by mizzao 5y ago

marcosdumay 5y ago

The MVP strategy is entirely about validating your product. Unless you decide it has a good market fit, there is nothing in it telling you how to look for alternatives. There's nothing telling you to go by hill-climbing, or even by any gradient based search at all. What it says is that once you find product-market fit, you don't destroy it by jumping around at random. But at this point, it's about disruption and the Innovator's Dilemma, where you are the incumbent. It's not about starting-up anymore.

rileyphone 5y ago

This is a great analogy, basically plotting startup success on an evolutionary NK landscape [0]. Finding optima rests on a healthy balance of exploration and exploitation, as in the behavior of ant colonies searching for food. Apple has been a good historical model of this in business, though for a startup it's often necessary to keep the chips all in on one product. Ideally though, a pivot isn't a random jump, but is rather guided by an incomplete map of the landscape. Herein lies the value of the MVP, but it's curse is being difficult to throw away, especially once it has some traction. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK_model