MVPs Suck: A Hot Take
For the last 3 years, I've worked as a freelance UX designer specifically working with startups. 25 startups, 100s of projects, best learning experience an entrepreneur could ask for.
Naturally my work commonly goes towards designing MVPs. Minimum Viable Products. And over the years I've had a lot of time to think about MVPs. And this is what I think:
I think MVPs suck.
The "MPVS ARE GREAT" drum gets beat constantly. I've heard it here on Indie Hackers a lot. And to be honest, I think it is good advice. For a time. And then it quickly becomes terrible.
The term MVP is largely accredited to Eric Ries' book the Lean Startup. It tells the story of Ries' video game startup and things he learned along the way. A key to the success was MVPs or as Wikipedia puts it "just enough features to be usable by early customers who can then provide feedback for future product development."
We love focusing on "just enough features" and "enough to provide feedback". Because who doesn't love going fast? Building something new is SOOO fun! But we sort of forget about the last three words: future product development.
You see, if all you are building is MVPs, you are missing what makes them powerful. The purpose of an MVP is to find out what can help your customers. And you do it minimally because in the beginning, you aren't sure who is going to like it.
But when you find out your MVP works... Stop. Building. MVPs. Start putting your heart and soul into making something awesome.
But instead, this is what I have seen.
Founders turn into MVP machines. They become great at making things quickly. But everything they make has bugs. Nothing feels that great. And more importantly, it doesn't blow people away.
If there is one thing I've learned from being a designer, it is that doing great work takes WAY longer than doing good work. But great work is how great companies are built. Great companies exist because their product is so good people keep using it over and over and then they tell their friends. And those friends become customers. And then their friends do too.
I'm not saying don't build an MVP. But don't just build an MVP. Once you find something works, build something great. And then make it better.
I like your take. My beef with MVPs in the community is maybe around definition. I think a lot of times that MVP gets treated as a synonym with "quick shitty version of something that obviously sucks but may not suck in the future if people seem to like the original concept."
I just can't get behind that. I love the idea of not building the world before getting any feedback, but we seem to go too far the other way a lot of time so now I am just kind of jaded when I hear the term MVP.
@pjbrown11 could not possibly agree more. I think the idea of keeping things minimal is good. For example, if you building an event management tool, you're probably not going to launch with a scanning app, full sites, virtual events, and literally every other crazy idea out there. Probably start with one feature. Maybe a few.
But for crying out loud... don't make it suck! Make something as good as you possibly can.
Thanks for the comment!
Totally agree. I worked at a company where everything was treated as "an experiment" but that was really an excuse to not do the project thoroughly. When I asked what outcomes they expected from the test or what decision the data would inform, I usually got a shrug and a response "it's just a test" 👎
I can see how the market (people) can become immune to MVPs. The lean start up was written in 2011, when software development talent supply was relatively low compared to now.
Now the barrier to launching is also low, I currently have an MVP but finding that launching with just one feature may not cut it
100% @qasm46. Could not agree more. Things are way different now than when that was written. Much easier to make something much better.
Interesting take. I think the difficulty lies in figuring out what "just enough features" mean. Sure, it's supposed to be the core features of your product, but what about onboarding or it being responsive for example? The most important thing is for customers to understand what the product does, so any MVP that fulfills it should be sufficient
@julienp17, very hard to figure out what just enough features mean. And that to me is still the ultimate skill. But I think what I see more often is people not doing that. What they do instead is just throw ideas at a wall thinking one is going to stick. For most Indie Hacker businesses especially, that probably won't work. You have to know your users, and be very strategic with your time. Thanks for the comment!
Finally someone with balls and experience.
Haha thanks @kinder
I didn't know that startups building MVPs over and over again was a thing that people did. Seems like a horrible idea. What do you think the reason is??
My guess is they're afraid to bet on one product.
Oh yeah, people do it like crazy. Just look at the posts that people write about building 12x12. 12 companies in 12 months. Just a bad idea. I used to think that was the best idea in the world. Since changed my mind. Just way too hard to get one thing going.
I think fear is certainly a reason. From what I've seen mostly it is a lack of focus. People get an idea that sounds great, so they just build it. Because building is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more fun than selling and way less scary than marketing.
Yes, MVPs really should at least be useable and solve problem.
I like the idea of waitlist and validating ideas before building MVPs.
Currently I have a waitlist for AuthOS .app
I also am a huge fan of waitlists. Because it proves you can market before you build. However, sometimes hard to do. I've been really trying to learn more about lead magnets and I think that is the way. Still learning though.
I understand this take. But I like the concept of MVPs because before I heard of it. I wanted to build out every little feature and perfect everything before I even thought of launching a product. That thought process deterred me from building at all because I would get so overwhelmed. Then I came across the concept of MVPs and it removed so much pressure from myself. I do agree that we should not stop at the bare minimum even if the our MVP has been validated.
@AIJunction thank you for this! I think MVPs are great for that. But I think people learn that strategy and then just forget about that feeling. You know the one? Where you love your idea so much you could die? Where you just want to make everything perfect.
If you look at massive companies, usually there is someone there willing to dream of some insane thing. The truth is you need both skills. The passion to make something perfect, and the perspective to launch fast.
VERY hard to do, because they are opposites. But that is the game!
Awesome comment!
One strategy I've seen many recent Indie Hackers employ is running a waitlist to prove a PMF before going into full development. This could remove the need to deploy a mediocre MVP
I think this can work, but I'm still learning. It is still really hard to sell software without people being able to use it. Or maybe it is just scary? Haha like I said still learning!
I personally know entrepreneurs who have done it, but it usually works best on very high ticket items. Honestly it is the dream. If you figure it out, PLEASE post and tag me!
At Clous, we firmly believe that an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) is not sufficient to demonstrate the added value our product aims to provide. That's why we are committed to pursuing product-market fit (PMF) with exceptionally high quality standards, even if it means delaying some of our OKRs (Objectives and Key Results).
@Abick91, just want to clarify. What OKRs are you delaying? Do you mean you are delaying making money to build something awesome?
I like the approache of delivering a magical experience for a single use case/ a single user type. I also like to lean into the "My app is not bare we just embrace the minimalist aesthetic".
I could not agree more
I think the famous product MVP iteration is from a ski board until a car. Each iteration is a whole workable bug less product. I think people keep forgetting and just unconsciously tear the final product into parts and released one by one a.k.a feature.
I also really love this analogy! Thanks for sharing.
But I'd like to add some color on this if that is ok. If you are going to build a skateboard... make it awesome! Don't slap four terrible wheels on a piece of plywood and call it good.
That might be a step to get to your car. But if your skateboard sucks, no one is going to buy your car.
It is important to build a complete work, not just half-finished products. That's wht I learned from CS183B@Stanford/YC.
Love it!
Totally agree with you MVP should just be a glorified survey. Request email from them at the end to see how interested are they to the product. When you see people are interested to the product stop the MVP and start building the real product.
Here an article about this : How to build a MVP: Focus on what user want
Essentially good product it self is a marketing and without one its hard to retain the customer.
One good trick with mvp as survey that you can do, while waiting for the real product to be shipped, you can promote your mvp to collect emails.
Interesting idea. Survey as an MVP. I've never heard that. Need to think about it for a minute, but for sure something to chew on! Thanks for sharing.
There is definitely nuance here – I wouldn't conclude that all MVPs "suck."
When I work with teams on MVPs, I like to say cut scope, not corners. In other words, build a great user experience but reduce the number of features and paths through the product.
In the case of my project, Mel, the entire UX is SMS-based. So the user doesn't really know that they are using an MVP – which involved me manually responded to messages on Google Voice and tracking requests in Notion, and sending Stripe payment links. When I migrated from the MVP to the more polished product, there was no change to the user experience.
Now you are talking @nolastan! I love sneaky behind the curtain features. Because users often have no idea. Their experience is just as good. Often times better.
I honestly agree with almost everything you wrote. But I think like you said in your comment and @pjbrown11 said, the meaning has changed. It has become and excuse to not work hard on things that matter. To cut corners. To just make garbage. And never revisit things ever again.
Also, I think there is ENORMOUS power in saying no. It is too easy to say yes to an MVP because, its "so small" haha. Its like trying to say no to a mini cupcake. Not possible. Unless of course you're gluten free. But they try saying no to a gluten free mini cupcake. No chance honey!