5 ms·

Why is your Minimal Viable Product (MVP) really just a PoS

41 points by whoisvince 15y ago

timdorr 15y ago
I think the key thing people are forgetting is the V in MVP. It has to be viable. I keep seeing people building minimal products, but nothing that's viable. It's also a factor of people spreading themselves too thin. You don't have to do a dozen features and make them all minimal. Do the 2 or 3 that are core to the application and make them full-featured. Who knows? That might be all you need.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  Yup. If I can't use your product for what it's meant to do, then is it really a minimum viable product? We already have another term for software that doesn't yet exist: vaporware. What I hate most are the landing pages setup to gauge interest. Usually they have a name like: "Flrghx.ly: social meets socal" Which, of course, tells me everything. Throw in a few logos, like TechCrunch, Memefest, Facepalm, and CNN, and a few quotes from JS from SF, California on how he "Finally can socialize his socal social-mates using Flrghx on his iPhone." And then you have the "Hey give us your email! We won't spam you, we promise, we hate spam! But after 7 months of not hearing from us, we'll notify you of our launch, and then we'll subscribe you to our newsletter, and then send you updates that include notifications from our sponsors. But no spam!" Oh, and if I retween a tweet, I'll increase my chances to get into beta. If I post to my Facebook, then it doubles that increase!. And every friend that gives an email increases my chances! OMG! It's like a beta-pyramid scheme. Next they'll be pitching me Aetna.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The problem with Flrghx.ly is not that it isn't fleshed out and it's not that it isn't polished. It's that it's not likely to be a viable business. Plenty of businesses have bootstrapped to customers with nothing but vapor. I've been on (extremely good) teams that got their ass handed to them in version 3.0 by vapor pitches. These are really orthogonal issues. How complete your product is, how polished it is, how few bugs it have, these things usually have less of an impact on your "viability" than nerds think it does (unless you're serving nerds, graphic designers, or competing with Twitter).
- freejack 15y ago
  Yeah, that and "don't release shit". It doesn't matter how well it conforms to the definition of MVP, if its crap, it won't matter. A proof-of-concept can be absolute crap - i.e. cardboard, whiteboard, whatever... I don't think MVP can. An MVP needs its own legs, the ability to carry its own momentum and without that, simply can't survive.
gfodor 15y ago
iPhone v1 is a pretty good example of a MVP IMHO. No copy paste, no multitasking, no 3rd party apps, the list goes on. But it was still the best phone money could buy.
- moocow01 15y ago
  Man, thats setting the bar pretty high
  - scottkrager 15y ago
    Yeah somehow "the best phone money can buy" doesn't sound like an MVP.
  - gfodor 15y ago
    IMHO, the bar is currently set way, way too low. In the domain the iPhone was in, there was a very large amount of "must have" features for a product to be something that could succeed in the market. (Email, web, phone, SMS, etc.) In other domains, the amount of features for this is certainly lower. But, the bottom line is you should be shipping stuff you should be proud of that can stand on its own legs. The "embarrassed" point gets overemphasized and usually is misinterpreted to mean to ship garbage against your better judgement.
TWSS 15y ago
I've wrestled with this, personally. Honestly, I think it's hard to tell what's viable and what's not when it's your baby, and you've been living and breathing it for months. The standard that I hold myself to is whether or not the product provides value to the user or customer. Does it do something new or interesting that someone (besides your team) cares about, or is it just the first part of something that you hope will provide value? It's tempting to jump the gun, and I think honesty on the part of those around you can help keep you from releasing a minimum, non-viable, product.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I have exactly this problem with our product, and have known for over a year what the solution is. If you can't tell whether your product is viable, talk to its prospective customers until you can. Unfortunately, this is awfully hard for nerds like us to do. One way I know this to be true is by watching people who have an easy time of it hustle through customer meetings, taking a product idea from zero to "purchase order" with nothing but some static web pages.
tptacek 15y ago
A product is "viable" if it generates enough value for a group of customers that they find it worth paying for. The "minimum viable" product is the product that does the minimum set of things to be viable. Viability and quality are usually orthogonal concerns. Viability and polish are especially likely to be orthogonal. There are markets you can serve in which polish matters a great deal. Not coincidentally, these are markets covered carefully by people like Robert Scoble. Whether you're going to need to genuflect to Scoble's notion of your "viability" is an important question to address when choosing the market you want to serve.
- morsch 15y ago
  I think that the idea of a MVP makes sense outside of commercial development, so I disagree that viable := people find it worth paying for. It's easy to extend it to something like viable := people find it worth using or contributing or participating.
- lucisferre 15y ago
  Except that isn't what it is. MVP is a term taken directly from Lean Startup, in which Eric even includes concepts like the Dropbox "Video MVP" (http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/19/dropbox-minimal-viable-product/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/19/dropbox-minimal-viable-prod...) which arguably isn't actually a product and more importantly no one was paying them for it. The problem with MVP is people assume it's about how the adjectives "minimum" and "viable" apply to the noun "product" which is too a view (but one I had myself before actually reading TLS). The reality is it is just a placeholder for the process of lean validated learning.
- jacquesm 15y ago
  Would you consider WikiPedia a minimally viable product?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I don't understand the question.
alexmturnbull 15y ago
Good stuff Vincent! Wrote a similar piece a month ago:'Stop Launching Shitty MVP’s in Competitive Markets' http://bit.ly/vZXlN3 http://bit.ly/vZXlN3
- mindcrime 15y ago
  If somebody is "launching" (as in public launch) an "MVP" then they're doing it wrong in the first place. You don't normally take an MVP and put it out there for the entire world. You release it to a (carefully?) selected subset of users, that you've pre-identified somehow, whom you expect to get validated learning from. If somebody builds a crappy app, pushes it to the world, and slaps an "MVP" label on it, they haven't built an MVP and they're not really following the lean startup / customer development process.
justjimmy 15y ago
This was definitely one of the thing that stuck out to me, as I was (still am) learning about this industry, people throwing around the term 'MVP', all with their own definition and vision of what is an 'MVP' – from wireframe sketches (huh) to static screens. Some even blur it with videos explaining what their product is supposed to do (but no actual product yet). Do MVP really need work? Or is it sufficient as long you determine that there is value in your product via whatever means you choose? Hmm…
- whoisvince 15y ago
  Thanks everyone for your replies! @justjimmy, as for my understanding of what MVP is — there actually needs to be an actual functioning product... although, Eric himself does mention in his 'Lean Startup book' to products that qualify under the MVP title with just a video (Dropbox) and a Concierge service (don't remember the product)... I do find it weird that he mentions those as qualifying, since they really just validate the business model. One of his (Eric) simplest definitions for a MVP was a product that could easily go through a full cycle in the lean.feedback loop: https://skitch.com/vince.baskerville/gixq3/mvp-feedback-loop https://skitch.com/vince.baskerville/gixq3/mvp-feedback-loop which should/hopefully help distill what customers want & thus actually pay for.
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    I do find it weird that he mentions those as qualifying, since they really just validate the business model. Validation is exactly what you're seeking, especially in the earlier phases of the learn startup / customer development process. The whole point is to get validated learning as early as possible, and eliminate waste, where "waste" is "building something nobody wants."
  - justjimmy 15y ago
    Maybe we need to separate the two more clearly? It's kinda blurry atm. PoC/MVP is basically boiling down the product to the core and validate if it has value. (Whether it's through an initial working product, wireframe or a video) But the actual working alpha product that a startup put in consumers' hands has to be a non PoS with minimum bugs, as pointed out in the article.
SteveJS 15y ago
Odd. I'd think polishing the PoS idea you thought was an MVP was a more likely problem. I know that would be my tendency. I'd need someone crazy helping me jump into trouble: http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/inventors-who-want-to-do-business-stop-doing-build-first-because-it-doesnt-work http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/inventors-who-want-to-do-bu...

41 points by whoisvince 15y ago

I think the key thing people are forgetting is the V in MVP. It has to be viable. I keep seeing people building minimal products, but nothing that's viable. It's also a factor of people spreading themselves too thin. You don't have to do a dozen features and make them all minimal. Do the 2 or 3 that are core to the application and make them full-featured. Who knows? That might be all you need.

jasonlotito 15y ago
Yup. If I can't use your product for what it's meant to do, then is it really a minimum viable product? We already have another term for software that doesn't yet exist: vaporware. What I hate most are the landing pages setup to gauge interest. Usually they have a name like: "Flrghx.ly: social meets socal" Which, of course, tells me everything. Throw in a few logos, like TechCrunch, Memefest, Facepalm, and CNN, and a few quotes from JS from SF, California on how he "Finally can socialize his socal social-mates using Flrghx on his iPhone." And then you have the "Hey give us your email! We won't spam you, we promise, we hate spam! But after 7 months of not hearing from us, we'll notify you of our launch, and then we'll subscribe you to our newsletter, and then send you updates that include notifications from our sponsors. But no spam!" Oh, and if I retween a tweet, I'll increase my chances to get into beta. If I post to my Facebook, then it doubles that increase!. And every friend that gives an email increases my chances! OMG! It's like a beta-pyramid scheme. Next they'll be pitching me Aetna.
- tptacek 15y ago
  The problem with Flrghx.ly is not that it isn't fleshed out and it's not that it isn't polished. It's that it's not likely to be a viable business. Plenty of businesses have bootstrapped to customers with nothing but vapor. I've been on (extremely good) teams that got their ass handed to them in version 3.0 by vapor pitches. These are really orthogonal issues. How complete your product is, how polished it is, how few bugs it have, these things usually have less of an impact on your "viability" than nerds think it does (unless you're serving nerds, graphic designers, or competing with Twitter).
freejack 15y ago
Yeah, that and "don't release shit". It doesn't matter how well it conforms to the definition of MVP, if its crap, it won't matter. A proof-of-concept can be absolute crap - i.e. cardboard, whiteboard, whatever... I don't think MVP can. An MVP needs its own legs, the ability to carry its own momentum and without that, simply can't survive.

gfodor 15y ago

iPhone v1 is a pretty good example of a MVP IMHO. No copy paste, no multitasking, no 3rd party apps, the list goes on. But it was still the best phone money could buy.

moocow01 15y ago
Man, thats setting the bar pretty high
- scottkrager 15y ago
  Yeah somehow "the best phone money can buy" doesn't sound like an MVP.
- gfodor 15y ago
  IMHO, the bar is currently set way, way too low. In the domain the iPhone was in, there was a very large amount of "must have" features for a product to be something that could succeed in the market. (Email, web, phone, SMS, etc.) In other domains, the amount of features for this is certainly lower. But, the bottom line is you should be shipping stuff you should be proud of that can stand on its own legs. The "embarrassed" point gets overemphasized and usually is misinterpreted to mean to ship garbage against your better judgement.

TWSS 15y ago

I've wrestled with this, personally. Honestly, I think it's hard to tell what's viable and what's not when it's your baby, and you've been living and breathing it for months. The standard that I hold myself to is whether or not the product provides value to the user or customer. Does it do something new or interesting that someone (besides your team) cares about, or is it just the first part of something that you hope will provide value? It's tempting to jump the gun, and I think honesty on the part of those around you can help keep you from releasing a minimum, non-viable, product.

tptacek 15y ago
I have exactly this problem with our product, and have known for over a year what the solution is. If you can't tell whether your product is viable, talk to its prospective customers until you can. Unfortunately, this is awfully hard for nerds like us to do. One way I know this to be true is by watching people who have an easy time of it hustle through customer meetings, taking a product idea from zero to "purchase order" with nothing but some static web pages.

tptacek 15y ago

A product is "viable" if it generates enough value for a group of customers that they find it worth paying for. The "minimum viable" product is the product that does the minimum set of things to be viable. Viability and quality are usually orthogonal concerns. Viability and polish are especially likely to be orthogonal. There are markets you can serve in which polish matters a great deal. Not coincidentally, these are markets covered carefully by people like Robert Scoble. Whether you're going to need to genuflect to Scoble's notion of your "viability" is an important question to address when choosing the market you want to serve.

morsch 15y ago
I think that the idea of a MVP makes sense outside of commercial development, so I disagree that viable := people find it worth paying for. It's easy to extend it to something like viable := people find it worth using or contributing or participating.
lucisferre 15y ago
Except that isn't what it is. MVP is a term taken directly from Lean Startup, in which Eric even includes concepts like the Dropbox "Video MVP" (http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/19/dropbox-minimal-viable-product/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/19/dropbox-minimal-viable-prod...) which arguably isn't actually a product and more importantly no one was paying them for it. The problem with MVP is people assume it's about how the adjectives "minimum" and "viable" apply to the noun "product" which is too a view (but one I had myself before actually reading TLS). The reality is it is just a placeholder for the process of lean validated learning.
jacquesm 15y ago
Would you consider WikiPedia a minimally viable product?
- tptacek 15y ago
  I don't understand the question.

alexmturnbull 15y ago

Good stuff Vincent! Wrote a similar piece a month ago:'Stop Launching Shitty MVP’s in Competitive Markets' http://bit.ly/vZXlN3 http://bit.ly/vZXlN3

mindcrime 15y ago
If somebody is "launching" (as in public launch) an "MVP" then they're doing it wrong in the first place. You don't normally take an MVP and put it out there for the entire world. You release it to a (carefully?) selected subset of users, that you've pre-identified somehow, whom you expect to get validated learning from. If somebody builds a crappy app, pushes it to the world, and slaps an "MVP" label on it, they haven't built an MVP and they're not really following the lean startup / customer development process.

justjimmy 15y ago

This was definitely one of the thing that stuck out to me, as I was (still am) learning about this industry, people throwing around the term 'MVP', all with their own definition and vision of what is an 'MVP' – from wireframe sketches (huh) to static screens. Some even blur it with videos explaining what their product is supposed to do (but no actual product yet). Do MVP really need work? Or is it sufficient as long you determine that there is value in your product via whatever means you choose? Hmm…

whoisvince 15y ago
Thanks everyone for your replies! @justjimmy, as for my understanding of what MVP is — there actually needs to be an actual functioning product... although, Eric himself does mention in his 'Lean Startup book' to products that qualify under the MVP title with just a video (Dropbox) and a Concierge service (don't remember the product)... I do find it weird that he mentions those as qualifying, since they really just validate the business model. One of his (Eric) simplest definitions for a MVP was a product that could easily go through a full cycle in the lean.feedback loop: https://skitch.com/vince.baskerville/gixq3/mvp-feedback-loop https://skitch.com/vince.baskerville/gixq3/mvp-feedback-loop which should/hopefully help distill what customers want & thus actually pay for.
- mindcrime 15y ago
  I do find it weird that he mentions those as qualifying, since they really just validate the business model. Validation is exactly what you're seeking, especially in the earlier phases of the learn startup / customer development process. The whole point is to get validated learning as early as possible, and eliminate waste, where "waste" is "building something nobody wants."
- justjimmy 15y ago
  Maybe we need to separate the two more clearly? It's kinda blurry atm. PoC/MVP is basically boiling down the product to the core and validate if it has value. (Whether it's through an initial working product, wireframe or a video) But the actual working alpha product that a startup put in consumers' hands has to be a non PoS with minimum bugs, as pointed out in the article.

SteveJS 15y ago

Odd. I'd think polishing the PoS idea you thought was an MVP was a more likely problem. I know that would be my tendency. I'd need someone crazy helping me jump into trouble: http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/inventors-who-want-to-do-business-stop-doing-build-first-because-it-doesnt-work http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/inventors-who-want-to-do-bu...