Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryukoposting | Hacker News Reader

The author argues that the notion that an "MVP is an outdated idea" is a misunderstanding of the definition of MVP, but I think the author is missing the the point that those folks are trying to make.

As the minimum viable product approaches the complexity of a complete product, the difference between the two shrinks to the point that the concept of MVP isn't all that useful anymore. That's the actual case against Lean Startup in 2024.

To be clear, I personally think MVP is still an immensely useful concept, but Reid's own 0-100 scale makes it hard to understand that. There is no 100. Most SaaS, and user-facing software in general, must be developed and maintained perpetually. It's not about approaching 100, it's about approaching a limit at infinity.

Today's MVP identifies a local maxima that's a composite of two axes: user experience, and technical debt. If that sounds surprisingly similar to the original definition, that's because it is.

View on HN

> As the minimum viable product approaches the complexity of a complete product, the difference between the two shrinks to the point that the concept of MVP isn't all that useful anymore. That's the actual case against Lean Startup in 2024.

I think this is an excellent way to summarize this.

I'm one of the anti-MVP persons out there, and my point is that more often than not people tend to use MVP as practice ship something half baked, not truly trying to build something viable or trying to validate anything. Then the response is crickets. In many professional domains, people are busy and not willing to spend time or evaluate solutions that are half way there to provide any value.

For startups with limited resources, more practical advice would be focus on building great core experience for a specific user group. You narrow the scope, build less but something better and different and shows the value for that group fast, whatever it takes.

You could call this a MVP but I'd just call it building a product people want to use. The MVP term is unnecessary.

Some ways maybe the success of Lean Startup also means that it's just a normal to build things iteratively. I don't think anyone is recommending here go back to the days shutting yourself in a basement for 5 years and then shipping 10,000 copies of it on a CD to all the RadioShacks.

> 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

It'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.

I 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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com