3 ms·
> You could call this a MVP but I'd just call it building a product people want to use. The MVP term is unnecessary. Isn’t the difference here just semantics
by 0xferruccio 3y ago
> You could call this a MVP but I'd just call it building a product people want to use. The MVP term is unnecessary.
Isn’t the difference here just semantics
From my understanding the premise of the article is that over the years there’s too much negative sentiment around the term MVP.
This negative sentiment comes from too many people building a half assed product instead of a kick ass half
- enra 3y agoIt's is but that's the issue. The term is misused and misunderstood. Meaning variety of things and activities. How the definition has emphasis on building something quickly and cheaply, can do more harm than help. When that happens maybe it's just time to retire the term and move on. These days it's common to validate products as you build them. You can critically think what a good product looks like in your space and aim for that. Then iteratively improve from there. Not sure what the MVP term really contributes to the practice.
- 0xferruccio 3y agoI think whether we want to call it first great core experience, v0.1, first iteration or MVP there is always a point in time for every product where you’re ready to start having some users The term exists to represent a snapshot within the longer life a of a product Its purpose is for you to understand how far do you need to go with building to start getting your first believers on board, while making progress towards a broader long term vision