[gfodor]

My problem with the "MVP" concept is it assumes you can generally know what it is you need to learn. This is true sometimes, but often not. Often taking the extra leap of faith on something results in richer, more meaningful understanding than the surface-layer assumptions you have before you actually make the leap. Launching a landing page can only tell you so much compared to if you got a working prototype in front of test uers, and a working prototype in front of test users can only tell you so much compared to having a real-world product being used by pilot customers. Learning that people don't sign up on your faux landing page could mean any number of things, and your reaction to it depends largely upon your assumptions about what you think it means.

[loceng]

The way I validated my ideas, instead of a landing page, was simply asking the people who would be users and getting feedback on the features and function. This replaced the need of having a landing page. I then created a prototype, which I had hoped would be enough for an MVP, though you gain insights while developing that you couldn't see otherwise - and realized it wasn't enough for the user adoption and usability level required.

[_pius]

My problem with the "MVP" concept is it assumes you can generally know what it is you need to learn.

More accurately, it forces you to have falsifiable hypotheses to test, which is pretty useful.