[mdorazio]

I'm actually going to disagree with this post because it's a tangential problem to what MVPs are supposed to be for. If you're operating on a shoestring budget in a competitive environment (i.e. most pre-money startups), you don't know if your idea is worth making "slick", so you build the minimum usable feature set that will get you feedback from actual customers. I've seen far too many developers (and hardware engineers) go down a path similar to what the author is proposing, only to find out that they spent a bunch of time making a simple, complete thing that no one actually wanted.

Start with MVP, see if it resonates, then you can spend the time to go for SLC.

[ssgodderidge]

> “MVPs are too M and rarely V. Customers see that, and hate it. It might be great for the product team, but it’s bad for customers. And ultimately, what’s bad for customers is bad for the company.”

I think the author agrees with you in part— MVP’s are objectively better for product teams to get feedback faster.

I agree with you that the idea of an MVP can’t be dismissed in all scenarios. Get it “viable” enough that it feels complete. Get feedback and move from there.