Product Development February 16, 2020

Stop aiming for an MVP and work towards an SLC instead

Chris Blackwell @chrisblackwell

I've been hearing a lot of people talk about trying to get their app to an MVP. I think the market has moved beyond MVPs and the bar is higher. That doesn't mean you have to create every feature you can think of. What is does mean is the features that you build, should be Simple, Lovable and Complete.

Taylor Otwell (the creator of Laravel) recently said on his podcast that he thinks nobody wants to signup for MVPs anymore. They want SLCs. Jason Cohen (founder of WP Engine) has also said the same on his blog.

If you're app only does 3 nice things over your competitors, make sure they are polished and complete.

  1. 4

    I've ranted about this many times but my issue here is that MVPs have become bastardised and misunderstood.

    An MVP should be simple, lovable and complete.

    MVP does not equal shit. It SHOULD mean the smallest feature set required to prove your products viability, but that feature set should still be designed and built well.

    1. 1

      I often see you on here stating this same thing and I could not agree any more. I believe that as a community of indies, we need to call it how it is.

      A little off topic but I often see people with less than bad websites with multiple comments praising the design. It's my pet peeve.

  2. 1

    I overall agree, and especially in the context of this community I like the SLC terminology, but I think it depends on your goal and the process you're in.

    If you're looking to go to market quickly to validate an idea I fully agree and SLC is the way to go.
    If you're looking to prove partners, investors, of what can be achieved the MVP still makes sense.

    Anyway both terminologies kind of aim for the same thing, which getting something usable quickly and avoid building before getting the pulse from the audience you address.

  3. 1

    I agree, the definition of "MVP" has evolved. I tend to now refer to this as a "Minimally Useable Product" instead.

    1. 1

      I like that

  4. 1

    This comment was deleted 2 months ago.