3 ms·
It sounds as if your MVP wasn't viable... That is: what you thought was the important part of the 95% and what the potential customers thought, differed too mu
by Beldin 3y ago
It sounds as if your MVP wasn't viable...
That is: what you thought was the important part of the 95% and what the potential customers thought, differed too much.
Sidenote: I wouldn't be surprised if you closely followed what customers stated and still ended up somewhere they didn't care for.
- rqtwteye 3y agoThere is a lot of luck in figuring out what’s minimum viable. even if you listen closely and deliver what the customers say, there is a good chance they won’t like it when they get it.
- profstasiak 3y agoIf you want to redefine MVP in that manner, the term and whole idea carries exactly 0 bits of information. It's a bit like yelling "not real socialism" / "not real capitalism" every time someone gives a good counter example to your prefered ideology
- christoff12 3y agoBut this isn't redefining the term. Running experiments to discover what's most important, then focusing on building to solve for that is the whole point. If you get far enough along where you're not able to iterate with well-regarded design partners out of the gate, you've messed up somewhere along the minimum and/or viable spectrum.