3 ms·
Ask HN: Your MVP or Customer's MVP?
If your startup is not the first-mover, what would your strategy be to build a MVP? How would you define your MVP?
Would your approach be different for B2B apps versus a social platform?
Was reading Robert Scoble's blog on "Why I'm treating startups more critically lately" and was wondering how one would approach it. In our case, we are targeting customer's definition of MVP for our startup.
https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/NN7YJRT7S8m
- burke 15y agoI'd argue that if the definitions don't overlap, you're not interpreting the word "viable" correctly. EDIT: That came off snarkier than I meant it. What I'm getting at is that if you think you have a Minimum Viable Product, but your potential customers don't agree, then the product is actually not viable at all.
- skrish 15y ago:) True. That is why it is essential to continuously engage with potential customers while defining what goes into the product. If we were to work in a closed box environment "assuming" what is required for MVP, we may end up iterating a lot internally. It is essential that what we build is what we validate with customers as "must-haves" for first version.
- bmelton 15y agoThis was sort of recently touched on, and I had comments there which I will rehash here, perhaps more thoughtfully. My definition of an MVP is "the minimum product you can produce to test whether there is a market*" To me, this means that an MVP for a B2B app can be plain, and can even be boring in fact. It can have only one feature. It doesn't need social sign in buttons. It doesn't necessarily even need graphics except where they are required by the application. The point is to be able to put forth a feature to potential customers that will either save them time or save them money. This allows you to get your product in front of customers as quickly as possible without worrying about anything other than "the app" that you can sell. If you can get your customers to open their wallets for "the app", then you can get after everything else. Depending on where you're at in your lifecycle, that may obviously vary. If you're pitching to investors, or if it is a social app, then obviously design matters significantly more. Fluff matters more. In social apps, or user-facing apps, design is often either a key differentiator or even a feature. If you're launching in a space with a proven market, then MVP takes on an entirely different term. You don't need to see whether or not people will pay, you just need to figure out how to get them to pay for your app versus existing competitors. In your case, your focus should shift dramatically, and should instead be very polished, if not close to perfect. Not being the first mover means that the market is at least tested, if not proven. If there is somebody doing the same thing, then you need to launch as close to perfect as is possible while being quick to get to the door. This isn't necessarily an easy task, which is generally why the "get to MVP as quickly as possible" is such an important goal, and why that mantra is so often repeated by seasoned entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, industry experts and analysts alike
- skrish 15y agoExcellent points. I like your point that in an established space, the focus should be on polished features. To me the key message to take-away is: * less features is good, as long as they look complete in itself. * finding those initial customers who are willing to work with you "despite" the less features is critical.