3 ms·
The article seems to be attacking MVPs which are not "viable". In the included graph of the development of a car I have seen version which show exactly the pref
by rabbits77 3y ago
The article seems to be attacking MVPs which are not "viable". In the included graph of the development of a car I have seen version which show exactly the preferred path of development skateboard --> scooter --> bike ... as an example of an MVP! Here the author uses a new initialism "SLC" to describe this preferred path of development and the only reason seems to be some experience dealing with non-viable MVPs.
- zer00eyz 3y ago>>> skateboard --> scooter --> bike ... Car This is the core problem with MVP in many cases.... engineers end up having to put an engine, seats and doors on a skateboard rather than clean slate at every step.
- amluto 3y agoForget the factory. A skateboard, a scooter and a car are not similar enough for this to make much sense. Tesla pulled off an MVP, the Roadster, that actually made sense: they built a drivetrain (which was their actual innovation) and sold inside someone else’s car. It was minimal: they focused on what would distinguish them (it was a fast EV!) but didn’t have much else going on; it was viable (one could drive it and have fun); and it was a product (one could actually buy it). But it was a car, not a skateboard or a scooter. It demonstrated that they could build an electric car that was fun to drive and had respectable range. An electric scooter wouldn’t have done that, and might not have had much to distinguish Tesla from, say, Mission Motors. Scooters have been able to go large distances with small amounts of fuel for a long time.