14 ms·

How to Build a Minimum Lovable Product

144 points by dundalk03 5y ago

amelius 5y ago
So something that you barely love ... Doesn't sound any better, to be honest.
- cperciva 5y ago
  It could be something you love but which is only barely a product. My (almost) 1 year old could qualify -- very lovable but there really isn't much of a market. ;-)
  - amelius 5y ago
    Better call it "Lovable Minimum Product" then.
ilrwbwrkhv 5y ago
I think this falls into the problem of building something that is potentially interesting. If the problem is hair on fire bad, UX doesn't matter.
- dchuk 5y ago
  > If the problem is hair on fire bad, UX doesn't matter. Just replying to make sure you know how profoundly true this is. And if you want the secret to mega success: solve a hair on fire problem with great ux and you will win almost automatically.
  - drBonkers 5y ago
    How do you identify hair-on-fire problems?
    - hyuuu 5y ago
      Would love to know this
      - JamesBarney 5y ago
        1. You already are deeply familiar with an industry Or 2. You can tell when you talk to people who have the problem. They get really excited about having it solving for them and don't care about the price it costs to solve it.
    - jschveibinz 5y ago
      One good way is to live them. Those who have worked for 5-10 years in any given field (not just software) can easily identify the most valuable “hair on fire” problems to solve. Otherwise, consider these factors: 1. How many people are affected? 2. How much does the problem cost (in time or money)? 3. How much extra money can be made by solving the problem? 4. How much time can be saved? 5. What is currently blocking the way to dramatic improvements (in anything)? 6. What is causing people real pain, fear, suffering, or dramatic inconvenience in a large enough market? That’s a good start, anyway. Good luck with the journey.
      - chefandy 5y ago
        If you run an established service or have a certain kind of userbase? Sure. For a startup with a consumer-focused mobile app? Maybe not. For them, not enough people liking your product to build a reputation is a "hair on fire" problem. In most shopping apps for example, most customers would never even know if the service had 12 hours of downtime per week. An extra step during the checkout sequence, however, and you'll never see them again if there's an alternative. Developers see interfaces and user flows as a place to expose controls so users can operate the software. To users, the interface is the software and bad interface = bad software. So it's super context dependent.
productceo 5y ago
Let me know when you would like me to invent yet another word to call the same thing. How's Minimum Promising Product? If MVP does not solve a real problem, it does not validate the correct hypothesis, so what the post describes as an MVP that is not MLP is not an MVP. And an MLP executed to be not MVP would be a thing built to be built, or taking unnecessarily risky bets spending unnecessary cost. Cut the crap with fighting words with words. If the community used the word MVP to help introduce a more useful concept, real builders focus on executing it correctly, to the best of our ability, giving the inventors fair credit and most charitable interpretation. Alas, we have content marketers among us, and those who failed and wish to blame it on being given wrong instructions to follow, inventing empty words like MLP.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  Why are you so upset about words? if you don’t like a word, don’t use it or make up your own! it’s a beautiful thing.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - labster 5y ago
    A word you create because you don’t like another word is called a blortle. I just made it up.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      A word you create because you need a random word is called a fizz, and when you need another fizz you call it a buzz.
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      no cap?
      - vmception 5y ago
arendtio 5y ago
The book "The Lean Startup" by Eric Ries helped me understand what an MVP is about. It is about learning. So 'viable' doesn't mean someone can barely use it to do X. It is more like an experiment that should answer a question (an hypothesis). So an MVP can be crappy, as long as it helps to answer the question it is supposed to answer. The lovable part should come, once you understand your environment and can build something that people actually need.
- hiptobecubic 5y ago
  That doesn't sound like a "product" to me nor does it sound "viable." That sounds like a regular old prototype.
  - soneca 5y ago
    I think of prototype as something to show that you can build something. No end user uses a prototype. End users use MVPs. I agree with GP
  - rco8786 5y ago
    It’s almost like it’s a pedantic argument from the start
- strainer 5y ago
  Viable doesn't usually mean a thing is only just or barely sufficient. It usually means a thing is at least sufficient. It means a thing is more than good enough to be viable. The question "is it viable?" is used to find out if something is at the point of being "good enough" or greater, and something more than good enough will still be "perfectly viable". "Minimal Viable" doesn't extend to great, but it does also reach perfect viability. Describe something as "barely viable" suggests its not quite viable. Viability is all about passing the threshold of being in fact viable. As viable is a binary qualifier, the "Minimal" part more intelligibly constrains the "Product". Its a minimal product that is yet viable, not a product with minimal viability. In the same vein "Minimal Lovable Product", shouldn't mean a product which someone could only barely love :]
paxys 5y ago
Too many people fall into the trap that an MVP is meant for the end user. The V stands for viable. You are simply testing if something is actually possible to do and fits a real use case or not. The consumers are: 1. Yourself - was it just a stupid thought in your head or actually something useful? 2. Investors - see this isn’t just a pipe dream but an actual working product. Now give me money. 3. Maybe a very small set of actual users to act as a focus group and tell you how stupid you are. Once an idea has passed validation by 1, 2 and 3, that’s when development can start. That’s when you build an MLP or alpha or beta or whatever else you want to call it. If you think you are just going to slap a logo on a MVP and start charging $10/month for it, no shit people will laugh you off.
davedx 5y ago
Seems to be popular at the moment to say “MVP has failed” without showing any evidence how. Just another attempt to kick start one more senseless hype cycle for no good reason
noodle 5y ago
> Minimum Lovable Products (MLPs) add more focus on the idea that whatever you’re putting out in the market has to solve a real-world problem from the beginning Is this not already the definition of an MVP? As they put it - a skeleton that doesn't solve anything - isn't really a viable product...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lyime 5y ago
Minimum viable and minimum lovable should be the same thing.
lucb1e 5y ago
I don't get this writing copy thing. It first seemed like the tweet was quoted and captioned "hard pass" with a repulsed gif maybe because a copywriter doesn't even know how to spell their job title, saying writing copy instead? But the article keeps using the word so that can't be it. Not sure if copywriting (with or without space) is a thing but copywriter and copyediting is: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copywriting https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copywriting Writing copy, no idea what that's supposed to be: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/writing%20copy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/writing%20copy Anyone here in the know of this jargon? And how is it related to "MLP"s (to stay in the custom jargosphere)?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cardamomo 5y ago
  "Copy," in the news and publicity world, basically means "text." It is old printing and newsroom jargon. See definition 4: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copy "Writing copy" just means writing text for publication. "Copywriting" means the same, though I don't think most copyeditors would let the word "copywriting" go to print. I think the terms is are used relatively clearly in the context of the article, so long as you know that "copy" means text to be published.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
javajosh 5y ago
When I read these kinds of posts it feels like I'm reading a monks treatise on how to fall madly, passionately in love. It's like, really hopeful, but I don't think great software is made in this way. It seems to always start out with something unaccountably useful, and building out the business-y stuff comes second. This post feels like it was written for businesses that are fungible software experiments ("just add money!")
nikodunk 5y ago
I LOVE this concept. Condenses so many missed points about MVP into a very simple acronym: Encapsulates succinctly "people wanting this product", making it "good enough to recommend to friends", etc. etc.
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
I like the approach. For myself, I have always loathed the MVP concept, and that has not made me fans; especially amongst this crowd. I've learned to just bite my tongue, and do things the way I do. I'm in the later stages of a fairly ambitious native Swift UIKit iOS app (around 40 screens). It has been in progress for about 18 months (over two years, if you consider the backend, which I also wrote). During that time, I have been sharing the built app with the team, using Apple's TestFlight beta-test system. I made my first TestFlight release on October 4, 2020. Since then, I've made around 600 releases. It's abusing the TestFlight process, which is really supposed to be an "end-stage" service, but it's worked well for us, and the Quality of the app is through the roof. We have also made several massive pivots, and have settled on a UX that we think users will love, and will address the needs of the community that it Serves (It's a free app, for a non-profit). I couldn't even imagine this being out there, during the last year or so (when we first thought we had a "viable" product). It would have completely destroyed any credibility we had (and we actually have quite a bit).
- anamax 5y ago
  > will address the needs of the community that it Serves How do you know that it does address their needs and how do you know that they care? > It's a free app, for a non-profit). And what makes doing it worth two years of your life?
  - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    Like I said, it doesn’t win me fans, in this community. > How do you know that it does address their needs and how do you know that they care? Let’s just say that I know the target demographic fairly well, having been a member of it for over 40 years, and having written a major, worldwide, infrastructure for it (over a period of ten years -also, on a volunteer basis). I eat my own dog food. I use the software I’ve written, pretty much daily, along with thousands of others, worldwide. In fact, this app uses that infrastructure, and integrates it with a simple social graph, so you could say the app is actually the result of over a dozen years of work. Also, the development process I use is highly testable. TestFlight[0] is, for all intents and purposes, a “mini App Store.” The app is a full-fat release, and is constantly being vetted by Apple. It’s not some crappy lash-up, like so many MVPs. It’s quite amazing, that it has been used constantly, since one month after I started coding. I can write a lot of really good code, really quickly. What I released to TestFlight, in October 2020, could have easily been considered “The heck with it, let’s ship” by many corporations. Even six months later, when we originally thought we had our first “shippable” app, it was still pretty pathetic. What we have now, is something we are all quite happy with. We still have some months of testing and preparation to go, before we have our first public beta. Brand damage is something that many geeks don’t understand, but is absolutely devastating, and almost impossible to repair. Even if there are some initial stumbles and hiccups (almost guaranteed), it won’t be an E.L.E. for the project or the team, and it won’t destroy our credibility. Even if it’s a complete flop (which it won’t be -I guarantee), people will still take our team seriously, so we will still be able to keep trying. I fully expect it to take several months (or longer) to mature, after we release it, but it is designed to be “infrastructure-level,” daily use, software. Good things take time. We have no problem with a “slow burn.” Also, the software that I write Serves a fairly sensitive demographic. Security, Privacy, and Accessibility are of paramount importance. Failure in these areas could have severe and detrimental impact on people’s lives. It’s not hyperbole, at all, to say people’s lives depend on the Quality of my work. I can’t afford to “move fast and break things,” as said “things” could be people’s lives. There’s a reason that I’ve repeated “people’s lives,” so often, above. I think it needs to be driven home. > And what makes doing it worth two years of your life? Two years is nothing (see 40 years, and 10 years, above). I’ve written software, professionally, and personally, that has lasted decades. I’m fairly adept at playing the long game (not particularly valued, in today’s tech industry). Also, the software that I have written personally, has the potential to make a major impact on people’s lives. It’s pretty important stuff; not some “leisure/entertainment” app for bored yuppies. I take my job pretty seriously. Some things are worth that kind of effort. If I had to explain, you wouldn’t understand. [0] https://developer.apple.com/testflight/ https://developer.apple.com/testflight/
kareemm 5y ago
I'm really coming to dislike this type of article. It's vague platitudes rather than a practitioner who has earned scars and thus has the experience to describe the nitty gritty why and how beyond the vague recommendations. For example: 1. Has the Userpilot team failed at building and MVP and succeeded with an MLP? If so what did they learn and why? 2. Lots of people have succeeded with an MVP approach. They describe a handful of things you can do wrong when building an MVP... but what if you DON'T do those things that they claim lead to MVP failure? 3. Digging into one of the recommendations - don't sacrifice delighters. They talk about how they wouldn't include the Asana unicorn in their MLP and end with "balance delighters with effort". Fine. But HOW do you do that? What framework can you provide ME to do that? This smacks of a writer doing a Google Research Project to offer up hand-wavy advice. 0/10 would not recommend.
- jesseendahl 5y ago
  I agree. FWIW this is a much better article on the same topic by someone who actually has earned scars. It also contains much more concrete advice: https://review.firstround.com/dont-serve-burnt-pizza-and-other-lessons-in-building-minimum-lovable-products https://review.firstround.com/dont-serve-burnt-pizza-and-oth...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pwthornton 5y ago
Obligatory: A Minimal Viable Product needs to actually be viable https://uxdesign.cc/a-minimal-viable-product-needs-to-actually-be-viable-8d121e6f31bd https://uxdesign.cc/a-minimal-viable-product-needs-to-actual...
thenerdhead 5y ago
Maybe we can just call it what it is... A prototype. A concept value test. A minimum viable product. A thing a user will pay for. Finding product-market fit. Or simply put... customer development. I do hate that the acronyms get overused by people who don't know what they are talking about. But I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel by changing a letter and giving it different meaning when it's the same thing. The two great points hinted in the article are "outcomes over outputs" and "jobs to be done". Everything else is kinda meh.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
layer8 5y ago
> focus on the idea that whatever you’re putting out in the market has to solve a real-world problem from the beginning Minimum monetizable product?
jyu 5y ago
Minimum Griftable Product - a product that overpromises based on what it currently does, may never end up being delivered, but technically still possible given enough funding. "Lovable" is a word to better describe hijacking the users' reptilian brain signaling to prefer your product design regardless of substance. Does that describe what you're doing? No? Buy some creepy instagram ads with more VC funding. Maybe that's what you need to inject more hacking the growth. To spread the love. Made lovingly in a cubicle farm by 100% real humans, not leetcode bots.
noizejoy 5y ago
> I once lived near a cafe that served coffee, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and at night turned into a jazz bar with fancy cocktail drinks. They also had a retro shop at the back of the cafe selling all kinds of vintage knick-knacks. Their focus was all over the place, they couldn’t even make decent coffee. Less than a year after opening, the do-it-all coffee place shut its doors. Years ago I once played a gig with my band in a place that was a coffee shop during the day, a restaurant in the early evening and a live music venue late evenings. It was a delightful feature, not a silly bug, in a very small rural town in the Canadian Prairies (kind of our version of the US mid west). Context matters. Especially in an article about “lovable”. Somehow the entire article struck me as quite flimsy, just a small step above content mill material.
- jamil7 5y ago
  A cafe that turns into a bar is pretty common I thought - at least in Europe. Maybe licensing is different to the US?
faangiq 5y ago
Recipe for wasting time. Build something people hate but will pay for.
DrStartup 5y ago
Minimum _sellable_ products are the best
HillRat 5y ago
Not a big fan of the article, but don’t dismiss the concept. I’m not sure if my former employer coined “MLP” or not, but we certainly used it extensively; I generally would describe it to clients as a “vertical slice” of the vision that is just wide enough to solve a single meaningful problem and deep enough to be viable as a standalone product. The MLP approach gave design a tight focus on the product and service experience that ensured they couldn’t blue-sky the design, let development get a full product out the door in a reasonable rapid schedule and with decent QA bounds, and ensured the business had something that that could be market-tested and form the basis of further growth. You have to think about the long-term “thriveability” of the MLP and how it fits into the business model, so it’s not a free lunch, but I’ve found it to be an effective way to avoid the usual pitfalls of boiling the ocean, early abstraction, unmaintainable scope creep, and so on.
rmbyrro 5y ago
> The MVP failed because “minimum” was taken too seriously, and “viability” is often dropped from the equation. If people don't apply a concept well, does that mean we need a new lovely concept? What prevents it from being misunderstood as well?

144 points by dundalk03 5y ago

amelius 5y ago

So something that you barely love ... Doesn't sound any better, to be honest.

cperciva 5y ago
It could be something you love but which is only barely a product. My (almost) 1 year old could qualify -- very lovable but there really isn't much of a market. ;-)
- amelius 5y ago
  Better call it "Lovable Minimum Product" then.

ilrwbwrkhv 5y ago

I think this falls into the problem of building something that is potentially interesting. If the problem is hair on fire bad, UX doesn't matter.

dchuk 5y ago
> If the problem is hair on fire bad, UX doesn't matter. Just replying to make sure you know how profoundly true this is. And if you want the secret to mega success: solve a hair on fire problem with great ux and you will win almost automatically.
- drBonkers 5y ago
  How do you identify hair-on-fire problems?
  - hyuuu 5y ago
    Would love to know this
    - JamesBarney 5y ago
      1. You already are deeply familiar with an industry Or 2. You can tell when you talk to people who have the problem. They get really excited about having it solving for them and don't care about the price it costs to solve it.
  - jschveibinz 5y ago
    One good way is to live them. Those who have worked for 5-10 years in any given field (not just software) can easily identify the most valuable “hair on fire” problems to solve. Otherwise, consider these factors: 1. How many people are affected? 2. How much does the problem cost (in time or money)? 3. How much extra money can be made by solving the problem? 4. How much time can be saved? 5. What is currently blocking the way to dramatic improvements (in anything)? 6. What is causing people real pain, fear, suffering, or dramatic inconvenience in a large enough market? That’s a good start, anyway. Good luck with the journey.
    - chefandy 5y ago
      If you run an established service or have a certain kind of userbase? Sure. For a startup with a consumer-focused mobile app? Maybe not. For them, not enough people liking your product to build a reputation is a "hair on fire" problem. In most shopping apps for example, most customers would never even know if the service had 12 hours of downtime per week. An extra step during the checkout sequence, however, and you'll never see them again if there's an alternative. Developers see interfaces and user flows as a place to expose controls so users can operate the software. To users, the interface is the software and bad interface = bad software. So it's super context dependent.

productceo 5y ago

Let me know when you would like me to invent yet another word to call the same thing. How's Minimum Promising Product? If MVP does not solve a real problem, it does not validate the correct hypothesis, so what the post describes as an MVP that is not MLP is not an MVP. And an MLP executed to be not MVP would be a thing built to be built, or taking unnecessarily risky bets spending unnecessary cost. Cut the crap with fighting words with words. If the community used the word MVP to help introduce a more useful concept, real builders focus on executing it correctly, to the best of our ability, giving the inventors fair credit and most charitable interpretation. Alas, we have content marketers among us, and those who failed and wish to blame it on being given wrong instructions to follow, inventing empty words like MLP.

micromacrofoot 5y ago
Why are you so upset about words? if you don’t like a word, don’t use it or make up your own! it’s a beautiful thing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- labster 5y ago
  A word you create because you don’t like another word is called a blortle. I just made it up.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    A word you create because you need a random word is called a fizz, and when you need another fizz you call it a buzz.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    no cap?
    - vmception 5y ago

arendtio 5y ago

The book "The Lean Startup" by Eric Ries helped me understand what an MVP is about. It is about learning. So 'viable' doesn't mean someone can barely use it to do X. It is more like an experiment that should answer a question (an hypothesis). So an MVP can be crappy, as long as it helps to answer the question it is supposed to answer. The lovable part should come, once you understand your environment and can build something that people actually need.

hiptobecubic 5y ago
That doesn't sound like a "product" to me nor does it sound "viable." That sounds like a regular old prototype.
- soneca 5y ago
  I think of prototype as something to show that you can build something. No end user uses a prototype. End users use MVPs. I agree with GP
- rco8786 5y ago
  It’s almost like it’s a pedantic argument from the start
strainer 5y ago
Viable doesn't usually mean a thing is only just or barely sufficient. It usually means a thing is at least sufficient. It means a thing is more than good enough to be viable. The question "is it viable?" is used to find out if something is at the point of being "good enough" or greater, and something more than good enough will still be "perfectly viable". "Minimal Viable" doesn't extend to great, but it does also reach perfect viability. Describe something as "barely viable" suggests its not quite viable. Viability is all about passing the threshold of being in fact viable. As viable is a binary qualifier, the "Minimal" part more intelligibly constrains the "Product". Its a minimal product that is yet viable, not a product with minimal viability. In the same vein "Minimal Lovable Product", shouldn't mean a product which someone could only barely love :]

paxys 5y ago

Too many people fall into the trap that an MVP is meant for the end user. The V stands for viable. You are simply testing if something is actually possible to do and fits a real use case or not. The consumers are: 1. Yourself - was it just a stupid thought in your head or actually something useful? 2. Investors - see this isn’t just a pipe dream but an actual working product. Now give me money. 3. Maybe a very small set of actual users to act as a focus group and tell you how stupid you are. Once an idea has passed validation by 1, 2 and 3, that’s when development can start. That’s when you build an MLP or alpha or beta or whatever else you want to call it. If you think you are just going to slap a logo on a MVP and start charging $10/month for it, no shit people will laugh you off.

davedx 5y ago

Seems to be popular at the moment to say “MVP has failed” without showing any evidence how. Just another attempt to kick start one more senseless hype cycle for no good reason

noodle 5y ago

> Minimum Lovable Products (MLPs) add more focus on the idea that whatever you’re putting out in the market has to solve a real-world problem from the beginning Is this not already the definition of an MVP? As they put it - a skeleton that doesn't solve anything - isn't really a viable product...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lyime 5y ago

Minimum viable and minimum lovable should be the same thing.

lucb1e 5y ago

I don't get this writing copy thing. It first seemed like the tweet was quoted and captioned "hard pass" with a repulsed gif maybe because a copywriter doesn't even know how to spell their job title, saying writing copy instead? But the article keeps using the word so that can't be it. Not sure if copywriting (with or without space) is a thing but copywriter and copyediting is: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copywriting https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copywriting Writing copy, no idea what that's supposed to be: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/writing%20copy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/writing%20copy Anyone here in the know of this jargon? And how is it related to "MLP"s (to stay in the custom jargosphere)?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cardamomo 5y ago
"Copy," in the news and publicity world, basically means "text." It is old printing and newsroom jargon. See definition 4: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copy "Writing copy" just means writing text for publication. "Copywriting" means the same, though I don't think most copyeditors would let the word "copywriting" go to print. I think the terms is are used relatively clearly in the context of the article, so long as you know that "copy" means text to be published.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

javajosh 5y ago

When I read these kinds of posts it feels like I'm reading a monks treatise on how to fall madly, passionately in love. It's like, really hopeful, but I don't think great software is made in this way. It seems to always start out with something unaccountably useful, and building out the business-y stuff comes second. This post feels like it was written for businesses that are fungible software experiments ("just add money!")

nikodunk 5y ago

I LOVE this concept. Condenses so many missed points about MVP into a very simple acronym: Encapsulates succinctly "people wanting this product", making it "good enough to recommend to friends", etc. etc.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

I like the approach. For myself, I have always loathed the MVP concept, and that has not made me fans; especially amongst this crowd. I've learned to just bite my tongue, and do things the way I do. I'm in the later stages of a fairly ambitious native Swift UIKit iOS app (around 40 screens). It has been in progress for about 18 months (over two years, if you consider the backend, which I also wrote). During that time, I have been sharing the built app with the team, using Apple's TestFlight beta-test system. I made my first TestFlight release on October 4, 2020. Since then, I've made around 600 releases. It's abusing the TestFlight process, which is really supposed to be an "end-stage" service, but it's worked well for us, and the Quality of the app is through the roof. We have also made several massive pivots, and have settled on a UX that we think users will love, and will address the needs of the community that it Serves (It's a free app, for a non-profit). I couldn't even imagine this being out there, during the last year or so (when we first thought we had a "viable" product). It would have completely destroyed any credibility we had (and we actually have quite a bit).

anamax 5y ago
> will address the needs of the community that it Serves How do you know that it does address their needs and how do you know that they care? > It's a free app, for a non-profit). And what makes doing it worth two years of your life?
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  Like I said, it doesn’t win me fans, in this community. > How do you know that it does address their needs and how do you know that they care? Let’s just say that I know the target demographic fairly well, having been a member of it for over 40 years, and having written a major, worldwide, infrastructure for it (over a period of ten years -also, on a volunteer basis). I eat my own dog food. I use the software I’ve written, pretty much daily, along with thousands of others, worldwide. In fact, this app uses that infrastructure, and integrates it with a simple social graph, so you could say the app is actually the result of over a dozen years of work. Also, the development process I use is highly testable. TestFlight[0] is, for all intents and purposes, a “mini App Store.” The app is a full-fat release, and is constantly being vetted by Apple. It’s not some crappy lash-up, like so many MVPs. It’s quite amazing, that it has been used constantly, since one month after I started coding. I can write a lot of really good code, really quickly. What I released to TestFlight, in October 2020, could have easily been considered “The heck with it, let’s ship” by many corporations. Even six months later, when we originally thought we had our first “shippable” app, it was still pretty pathetic. What we have now, is something we are all quite happy with. We still have some months of testing and preparation to go, before we have our first public beta. Brand damage is something that many geeks don’t understand, but is absolutely devastating, and almost impossible to repair. Even if there are some initial stumbles and hiccups (almost guaranteed), it won’t be an E.L.E. for the project or the team, and it won’t destroy our credibility. Even if it’s a complete flop (which it won’t be -I guarantee), people will still take our team seriously, so we will still be able to keep trying. I fully expect it to take several months (or longer) to mature, after we release it, but it is designed to be “infrastructure-level,” daily use, software. Good things take time. We have no problem with a “slow burn.” Also, the software that I write Serves a fairly sensitive demographic. Security, Privacy, and Accessibility are of paramount importance. Failure in these areas could have severe and detrimental impact on people’s lives. It’s not hyperbole, at all, to say people’s lives depend on the Quality of my work. I can’t afford to “move fast and break things,” as said “things” could be people’s lives. There’s a reason that I’ve repeated “people’s lives,” so often, above. I think it needs to be driven home. > And what makes doing it worth two years of your life? Two years is nothing (see 40 years, and 10 years, above). I’ve written software, professionally, and personally, that has lasted decades. I’m fairly adept at playing the long game (not particularly valued, in today’s tech industry). Also, the software that I have written personally, has the potential to make a major impact on people’s lives. It’s pretty important stuff; not some “leisure/entertainment” app for bored yuppies. I take my job pretty seriously. Some things are worth that kind of effort. If I had to explain, you wouldn’t understand. [0] https://developer.apple.com/testflight/ https://developer.apple.com/testflight/

kareemm 5y ago

I'm really coming to dislike this type of article. It's vague platitudes rather than a practitioner who has earned scars and thus has the experience to describe the nitty gritty why and how beyond the vague recommendations. For example: 1. Has the Userpilot team failed at building and MVP and succeeded with an MLP? If so what did they learn and why? 2. Lots of people have succeeded with an MVP approach. They describe a handful of things you can do wrong when building an MVP... but what if you DON'T do those things that they claim lead to MVP failure? 3. Digging into one of the recommendations - don't sacrifice delighters. They talk about how they wouldn't include the Asana unicorn in their MLP and end with "balance delighters with effort". Fine. But HOW do you do that? What framework can you provide ME to do that? This smacks of a writer doing a Google Research Project to offer up hand-wavy advice. 0/10 would not recommend.

jesseendahl 5y ago
I agree. FWIW this is a much better article on the same topic by someone who actually has earned scars. It also contains much more concrete advice: https://review.firstround.com/dont-serve-burnt-pizza-and-other-lessons-in-building-minimum-lovable-products https://review.firstround.com/dont-serve-burnt-pizza-and-oth...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pwthornton 5y ago

Obligatory: A Minimal Viable Product needs to actually be viable https://uxdesign.cc/a-minimal-viable-product-needs-to-actually-be-viable-8d121e6f31bd https://uxdesign.cc/a-minimal-viable-product-needs-to-actual...

thenerdhead 5y ago

Maybe we can just call it what it is... A prototype. A concept value test. A minimum viable product. A thing a user will pay for. Finding product-market fit. Or simply put... customer development. I do hate that the acronyms get overused by people who don't know what they are talking about. But I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel by changing a letter and giving it different meaning when it's the same thing. The two great points hinted in the article are "outcomes over outputs" and "jobs to be done". Everything else is kinda meh.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

layer8 5y ago

> focus on the idea that whatever you’re putting out in the market has to solve a real-world problem from the beginning Minimum monetizable product?

jyu 5y ago

Minimum Griftable Product - a product that overpromises based on what it currently does, may never end up being delivered, but technically still possible given enough funding. "Lovable" is a word to better describe hijacking the users' reptilian brain signaling to prefer your product design regardless of substance. Does that describe what you're doing? No? Buy some creepy instagram ads with more VC funding. Maybe that's what you need to inject more hacking the growth. To spread the love. Made lovingly in a cubicle farm by 100% real humans, not leetcode bots.

noizejoy 5y ago

> I once lived near a cafe that served coffee, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and at night turned into a jazz bar with fancy cocktail drinks. They also had a retro shop at the back of the cafe selling all kinds of vintage knick-knacks. Their focus was all over the place, they couldn’t even make decent coffee. Less than a year after opening, the do-it-all coffee place shut its doors. Years ago I once played a gig with my band in a place that was a coffee shop during the day, a restaurant in the early evening and a live music venue late evenings. It was a delightful feature, not a silly bug, in a very small rural town in the Canadian Prairies (kind of our version of the US mid west). Context matters. Especially in an article about “lovable”. Somehow the entire article struck me as quite flimsy, just a small step above content mill material.

jamil7 5y ago
A cafe that turns into a bar is pretty common I thought - at least in Europe. Maybe licensing is different to the US?

faangiq 5y ago

Recipe for wasting time. Build something people hate but will pay for.

DrStartup 5y ago

Minimum _sellable_ products are the best

HillRat 5y ago

Not a big fan of the article, but don’t dismiss the concept. I’m not sure if my former employer coined “MLP” or not, but we certainly used it extensively; I generally would describe it to clients as a “vertical slice” of the vision that is just wide enough to solve a single meaningful problem and deep enough to be viable as a standalone product. The MLP approach gave design a tight focus on the product and service experience that ensured they couldn’t blue-sky the design, let development get a full product out the door in a reasonable rapid schedule and with decent QA bounds, and ensured the business had something that that could be market-tested and form the basis of further growth. You have to think about the long-term “thriveability” of the MLP and how it fits into the business model, so it’s not a free lunch, but I’ve found it to be an effective way to avoid the usual pitfalls of boiling the ocean, early abstraction, unmaintainable scope creep, and so on.

rmbyrro 5y ago

> The MVP failed because “minimum” was taken too seriously, and “viability” is often dropped from the equation. If people don't apply a concept well, does that mean we need a new lovely concept? What prevents it from being misunderstood as well?