I think it might be a small misconception that an MVP is the product with bad design. In the most literal sense it's the minimum viable product, the minimum pr

I think it might be a small misconception that an MVP is the product with bad design. In the most literal sense it's the minimum viable product, the minimum product that is viable [to sell/to test/to get feedback]. Which is still very much alive. Most importantly your MVP should focus on the core functionality, this is often where you save most time. Products usually can branch out into many directions adding a bunch of cool, useful, but not essential features. For your MVP you should focus on the minimum functionality needed to make it valuable. Less features also means less work making them look good. The same applies to design. The standards are higher today, so a bootstrap app might not be sufficient anymore, but you might not need an amazing experience with for example amazing graphics, animations, and delightful micro interactions to sell your product. It very much depends on your situation and audience what your MVP might look like. For example if you target enterprise customers in an old industry the standards are much lower than consumer apps, and that bootstrap app might still work. The challenge is determining what is and isn't essential, which is not easy. People often don't know, and that is exactly why it's good to get your product out and test it as quickly as you can so you can adapt to reality.