2 ms·
An important distinction, at least in my definition of MVP, is that you're flexing on scope, not quality. If you release crap, you can't accurately assess the v
by avand 15y ago
An important distinction, at least in my definition of MVP, is that you're flexing on scope, not quality. If you release crap, you can't accurately assess the viability of your idea. If you release a quality product that does one or two things really well then you can measure product market fit and start iterating on new functionality. By restricting scope, you give yourself a better chance of getting to that point.
As @alexmturnbull suggests, the equation is a little different when your scope is large just to be a contender in a space.
- Idhackthat 15y agoPreach! ...I would add that there's a great deal of emotional complexity involved in great product design, and its easier said than done to determine correctly what is "viable" from what isn't for an initial launch product - even if its well tested (while I understand @alexturnbull isn't saying testing is bad, nor is he saying MVPs are inherently inappropriate or obsolete). That said, many of these "viable" touch-points are often intangibles - not discrete interactions, features or functional benefits, and this is something that can be really costly to get right. Hard to beef with the argument he's making specific to competitive markets. Its absolutely costly to enter competitive markets... Many product authors continue to miss the mark for what is MVP because these same "mission critical products" are getting more and more sophisticated, and consumer expectations are being raised all the time.