6 ms·
While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this. Beyond quibbling about
by blululu 2y ago
While I appreciate that the author put in the time and effort to write this, I have to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this.
Beyond quibbling about specific points, the MVP and the Vertical Slice are functionally similar they totally different in their purpose. Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new to the world software start up is trying to serve a need that is currently unserved. The test is whether there is any market at all for this product (PMF). The 80/20 rule is about getting some validation that the thing you are building is worth building in the first place - not that it can be done, but that it should be done.
There aren't a ton of specific examples listed, but the images might insinuate some products that the author has in mind. I would just point out that Magic Leap, Humane were both hardware products that spent >5 years in development. They cam out as completed fully finished products that were complete by any standard. The problem wasn't that these products shipped with missing features, it was that nobody wanted what they were selling (see also the Apple Vision Pro, which is technically phenomenal in terms of design/engineering/manufacturing, but not really very useful). These products did the opposite of the Lean Methodology and show the risk of trying something brand new and not validating the assumptions as quickly as possible.
- awesome_dude 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- isoprophlex 2y agoWho cares. The meaning is apparent and the structure is coherent. A well written comment, so these things seem too minor to call out IMO. What's more, these days if you include some strategic typos, you help convince me that you're not a lazy slop-poster, or an outright bot.
- throwup238 2y ago[flagged]
- mvdtnz 2y agoDon't post ChatGPT output in HN comments.
- throwup238 2y agoIt wasn’t ChatGPT, I just deleted a “p” and some apostrophes and spaces. It was just faster than swiping to the app.
- awesome_dude 2y agoChatGPT can you write me a response that includes enough typos to look human, but not enough that I look like a prince from Nigeria tracking down relatives to give them money?
- isoprophlex 2y agoI don't disagree but as long as 95% of people forget to do this, it's still a useful heuristic, i guess...
- blululu 2y agoFair point. I could have and should have done better. Sadly the edit window has passed otherwise I would clean up the original. In a sense, this more or less represents the core purpose of an MVP in action. The author might take the same lesson and revisit this essay in light of the feedback here (or just abandon it as a misstep that is not worth the effort to refine). I was sincere in saying that I appreciate the effort to get something out and start a conversation. While I disagree with most of the essay, there is certainly something to be said for striving to produce high quality work in everything we do. An MVP mindset can be an excuse for not holding ourselves to the highest standard (case in point, me posting a thing with half a dozen typos).
- awesome_dude 2y agoThanks, I didn't mean it as a dig, I just wanted to be sure that what I was guessing was being said was what you actually meant.
- dang 2y agoLet's not bother with that please. We want curious conversation here. Posting interesting and curious things matters infinitely more than spelling. Of course it's always fine to ask for clarification when necessary.
- awesome_dude 2y agoI want to be clear on what the idea being conveyed is, I'm guessing one thing, but the poster says another. That's a bad thing?
- dang 2y agoNot at all! - like I said, it's fine to ask for clarification. You should just do it in a way that is clearly distinct from chastising someone for typos. That wasn't clear in your post. I get it now that you didn't mean it as a dig (especially after seeing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42802018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42802018) but intent doesn't transmit itself automatically. The burden is on the commenter to disambiguate it. (Lots of past explanation about that here if anyone wants more: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). This doesn't mean that intent has to be stated explicitly—it just has to be clear—especially, clear enough to be distinct from ordinary kinds of internet attack, when those are not what is intended.
- awesome_dude 2y ago> This doesn't mean that intent has to be stated explicitly—it just has to be clear—especially, clear enough to be distinct from ordinary kinds of internet attack, when those are not what is intended. So... you're recommending a polite request for possible typos to be fixed because of the confusion being caused by them?
- dang 2y agoI'm recommending that you focus on meaning rather than spelling, and in particular to disambiguate your comment from pedantic nitpicking. I get that you didn't have the latter in mind, but your original comment didn't make that clear enough. As a result, it snapped to that grid in my mind, and probably other users' as well.
- pflenker 2y agoI think it’s also worth mentioning that the author fundamentally misunderstands a MVP. A vertical slice video game presentation _is_ a kind of MVP, and there are tons of anecdotes e.g. from the E3 that tell us just how minimal these can be. MVPs take different shapes and forms, a polished but limited video game level is no different than a polished landing page with functionality limited to e.g. sign up.
- the_mitsuhiko 2y agoTo deliver a vertical slice you also create hacks left and right and they quite often then later stand in the way of actually delivering a proper product. I remember the blog post by Ron Gilbert where he presented Da Vinci's Vertical Slice [1] and it still sits with me as one of the best way to present the issues. A vertical slice is not an MVP because people would never consider it minimally viable. It's a tiny product but it's completely polished and it's for a consumer of one: the publisher. [1]: https://grumpygamer.com/vertical_slice/ https://grumpygamer.com/vertical_slice/
- TimK65 2y agoThe complete polish is the author's very point, alongside the fact that most software products never get that complete polish.
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoI'd argue that an MVP is a minimal game with limited features - say, a platform game where you can walk and jump and finish the game, whereas a vertical slice is the complete experience, walk, jump, collect items, fight, achievements, etc, but the story is just a concept and there's only one level. In other software, MVP is what you can go live with to all of your customers (often replacing something existing and omitting half the existing features to much chagrin).
- scott_w 2y agoI think this is a better comparison than what the article gives. I do think it's not quite necessary to go live to all customers to be an MVP, however. Functionality that requires manual input from the company to make it work might be a reasonable MVP but not viable to go to everyone. It lets you validate what you're doing works, the customer is none the wiser that there's smoke and mirrors, but nonetheless that smoke and mirrors is there.
- bruce511 2y ago>> A new to the world software start up is trying to serve a need that is currently unserved. Well, yes in some cases. In lots of others it's just another implementation of existing software. Oh, you're building another food delivery app, because the current one is missing feature xxx? This doesn't make them bad, the world is full of different contexts, and providing a solution tailored to a specific context is valuable. But most startups are not "novel". Even in a novel space (like self driving cars) there are a bunch of companies in that space (basically competing for VC money. ) I'm very much in the MVP camp - if anything I'm more extreme- I'm in the "show me a market and how to reach them before coding anything" camp.
- cjblomqvist 2y agoThere are other parts than the product that can the innovation for a startup. Very few things are novel product wise when they hit it big. Innovation can be bringing existing business model to a new market for example. Then you should most likely 80/20 that new thing.
- globular-toast 2y ago> Video Games are generally competing for a slice of a large preexisting market. The test is whether it can compete against existing products. A new to the world software start up is trying to serve a need that is currently unserved. I feel like it's completely the opposite. A new game doesn't need to "replace" old games. People have played those games. It only needs to be new and good enough to get people's attention. But tools usually are replacing something existing. Tech that actually creates new possibilities is few and far between. The internet is one example of that. Can you think of another? I think most new tech is aiming to replace older tech that is currently used for those problems.
- evv555 2y agoI don't really disagree but if you look at the most played games on steam many of them are now old. There's a growing inventory of games that are turning into classics.
- philipwhiuk 2y agoNot really. Prior classics age out at roughly the same rate.
- Xelbair 2y ago>A new to the world software start up is trying to serve a need that is currently unserved. man, really? 99% of software is basically glorified CRUD view for some DB. it's nothing novel. If we venture outside of corporate software: most startups do not create anything novel - they just monetize existing businesses in a different(usually more predatory) way, or do X but digital. both usually go for 'virtual monopoly' by: offering service(never a product!) for free -> capture the market -> enshittify -> new startups repeats the cycle. The actual novelty where you find a need that is unserved is sub 0.1% of them. In reality you aim for product that fits current buzzword meta for funding. I do 100% agree that product-market-fit is probably the thing you should try to get ASAP though.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Gravityloss 2y agoThat's the point. It's not supposed to be technologically novel, at least at start. It's a new business. The innovation is in the business part. When we were in Rome and exited the Colosseum, it started raining. Some random dude walked to us and sold us an umbrella. Great business, both of us were better off.
- Xelbair 2y agoIt's more akin to someone giving you an umbrella subscription(if it rains more than twice this year I'll save money!), killing our all the competition with dumping prices by running on loss for years, and then hiking up the prices, while also tracking you and telling every food vendor your favorite food so they can prepare a greeter for you. if you think that's a sustainable model, and is good for society then you do you.
- Gravityloss 2y agoI don't like those predatory businesses. I think many games are like that nowadays. But not all businesses are like that. I think a game like Factorio is honest and respectable. It doesn't have any subscription models, you buy it once and own it forever. Technologically, AFAIK, it's using old fashioned technology (Allegro was started in 1990). The innovation is in the gameplay part.
- passwordoops 2y agoThough I appreciate the effort you put into your response, I think you're quibbling and missed the point. His qualm is with companies developing what amounts to a good demo (whether you call it MVP, prototype, Beta product, etc), validate their hypothesis but then call it a finished product. Validation is supposed to be just that, validation. Instead he's arguing companies call that initial validation market success, then relabel the demo a working product, warts and all. And, you're correct in saying the Vision Pro didn't flop because it wasn't developed properly. It flopped because no one wants what it has to offer, and that's a different problem from what the author describes
- ljm 2y agoI'm still not convinced on this though. These MVPs are usually a lot less minimal than you would expect for a prototype - far more than just wireframes and a basic POC that you expect to chuck out and rewrite. Might even have a handful of paying users as well. Since the comparison was made to games development, I think the closer equivalent is an early access release where you're generally paying for a WIP game at a lower price. Money changes hands, you get access to product in return, but there's no guarantee that it would ever be 'finished' or even what 'finished' might mean.
- dartos 2y agoTo quibble a bit, I don’t think that magic leap one released as complete products. Magic leap had like a 30 degree FOV and no software. It was a dev kit, literally. The consumer version was never released IIRC Also, I don’t think you argued against the main thesis which is something like “startup land is too good at the first 80% of a product, but not the latter 20%” That rings true for me. Our industry is not known for robustness and quality. There is robust and high quality software out there, but most of it is not.
- cma 2y ago> Magic leap had like a 30 degree FOV So they released both a vertical slice and a horizontal slice then.
- PaulHoule 2y agoMagic leap is an atypical example. It wasn't a "lean startup", it spent billions of dollars and many years developing an El Dorado [1] [2] [3] technology. They would have liked to deliver the system they had promised but investors were right to pressure them to deliver something -- even a broadly available dev kit is an important milestone for a technology like that. [1] For example, the liquid metal fast breeder reaxctor https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull20-6/20604782938.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... [2] https://kguttag.com/ https://kguttag.com/ tells you just how hard it is [3] Apple Vision Pro is a refined if overly expensive product that takes a different approach to the same end and consumers were indifferent