

Ask HN: Your MVP or Customer's MVP? - skrish

If your startup is not the first-mover, what would your strategy be to build a MVP? How would you define your MVP?<p>Would your approach be different for B2B apps versus a social platform?<p>Was reading Robert Scoble's blog on "Why I'm treating startups more critically lately" and was wondering how one would approach it. In our case, we are targeting customer's definition of MVP for our startup.<p>https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/NN7YJRT7S8m
======
burke
I'd argue that if the definitions don't overlap, you're not interpreting the
word "viable" correctly.

EDIT: That came off snarkier than I meant it. What I'm getting at is that if
you think you have a Minimum Viable Product, but your potential customers
don't agree, then the product is actually not viable at all.

~~~
skrish
:) True. That is why it is essential to continuously engage with potential
customers while defining what goes into the product.

If we were to work in a closed box environment "assuming" what is required for
MVP, we may end up iterating a lot internally. It is essential that what we
build is what we validate with customers as "must-haves" for first version.

------
bmelton
This was sort of recently touched on, and I had comments there which I will
rehash here, perhaps more thoughtfully.

My definition of an MVP is "the minimum product you can produce to test
whether there is a market*"

To me, this means that an MVP for a B2B app can be plain, and can even be
boring in fact. It can have only one feature. It doesn't need social sign in
buttons. It doesn't necessarily even need graphics except where they are
required by the application.

The point is to be able to put forth a feature to potential customers that
will either save them time or save them money.

This allows you to get your product in front of customers as quickly as
possible without worrying about anything other than "the app" that you can
sell. If you can get your customers to open their wallets for "the app", then
you can get after everything else.

Depending on where you're at in your lifecycle, that may obviously vary.

If you're pitching to investors, or if it is a social app, then obviously
design matters significantly more. Fluff matters more. In social apps, or
user-facing apps, design is often either a key differentiator or even a
feature.

If you're launching in a space with a proven market, then MVP takes on an
entirely different term. You don't need to see whether or not people will pay,
you just need to figure out how to get them to pay for your app versus
existing competitors.

In your case, your focus should shift dramatically, and should instead be very
polished, if not close to perfect. Not being the first mover means that the
market is at least tested, if not proven. If there is somebody doing the same
thing, then you need to launch as close to perfect as is possible while being
quick to get to the door.

This isn't necessarily an easy task, which is generally why the "get to MVP as
quickly as possible" is such an important goal, and why that mantra is so
often repeated by seasoned entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, industry
experts and analysts alike

~~~
skrish
Excellent points. I like your point that in an established space, the focus
should be on polished features.

To me the key message to take-away is: * less features is good, as long as
they look complete in itself. * finding those initial customers who are
willing to work with you "despite" the less features is critical.

