
The Maximum, Beautiful Product - iProject
http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/31/the-maximum-beautiful-product/
======
tomasien
The operative word for the MVP is "viable". What was viable for Apple with the
iPhone was a beautiful touch-UI, amazing hardware, and some native apps built
by Apple. It wasn't native apps from 3rd parties (not available until 2008),
the fastest processor possible, or the optimal screen size or resolution. They
iterated those things.

Minimal and viable mean different things for different projects, but defining
and adhering to those are important for everyone.

~~~
gfodor
The problem is that this changes the scope of the word so much as to render it
meaningless, since the arguments during meetings just shift to what exactly is
"minimally viable."

~~~
tomasien
Which is pricelessly what you should be arguing about: what do we agree is
minimally viable for what we're trying to do? If you can't decide that then
you can't decide anything.

~~~
gfodor
The whole thing seems like shifting definitions. What startup gets in a room
and says they should build things they are unsure they need for product
success?

------
gdubs
Yea, like what if steve jobs shipped the original iPhone without copy and
paste? Oh wait...

Apple was always a balance between perfectionism and "real artists ship", at
least from the stories I've heard.

------
tzaman
I think the author didn't read Lean Startup - or didn't understand it
properly. MVP isn't a product per se, it's a customer discovery process.

~~~
akkartik
His point is that you won't build something past the next local optimum if you
overtrain on your customers' immediate actions.

Even "4 steps to the epiphany" began with the vision of the founders. That
part of the message seems to get lost in the rhetoric.

------
1123581321
I think, whatever adjective you put in in the middle, minimum is always better
than maximum. Even if you choose an ambitious word like "iconic," "dominant,"
or "world-changing," you'll do better to attempt the minimum iconic product
than the maximum, because it's always better to do the same thing faster.

------
khmel
Problem with MVP is the loss aversion bias + limited resources that
entrepreneurs have - often 'lean' founders choose idea that is close to
existing business process \ customer habits or investment trends (this
decreases risk to lose) and then 'pivot' changing small things - one thing at
a time trying to get the new service. It works well for theatretical
improvisation and business improvements, but will not put product away from
existing trends. For the same reason, Silicon Valley is sometimes too trendy
and short-sighted. Many big ideas emerged outside of the Valley and then came
here to 'pivot'

