[Ensorceled]

In a small market the MVP will be more salable than in a larger market; regardless of the complexity of the MVP. That's the OP's point.

Any other reason you think this person has no understanding of markets? Because so far you've got nothing.

[littleidea]

What makes you believe that an MVP will be more salable in a small market? I see no model or evidence to support this thinking.

I also believe you are too focused on 'minimal' at the expense of 'viable' in MVP.

If you have relatively a relatively viable product, where would you rather sell? I'll take a big market every time.

If the point is what you say, then why does the original post repeatedly return to the theme of the simplicity of the solution?

I say the person has no understanding of markets because no point being made in the original post is actually about markets, or products for that matter. There is just a list of assertions and assumptions to justify choices that were already made.

If you want to build products for small markets, by all means, go to it.

[Ensorceled]

I spent the first half of my career in the startups in medical software, an industry where the minimal viable product includes a FDA submission. So, no, I am not focused on the 'minimal' at the expense of 'viable'.

In another response you say you don't think you were particularly aggressive. I think you need to evaluate how you present your arguments because you have, twice now, used unnecessary ad hominems.

You've reversed his entire story. He's saying "I built this simple thing and because it's in a small market with no entrenched gorilla's, I'm getting traction, you can too." It's an anecdote, not data, I agree, it does go towards establishing the point he is trying to make.

[littleidea]

Disagreeing with people is not an ad hominem.

Nor is being disagreeable for that matter...

I was dismissive and probably impolite. I apologized.

You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again, what makes you believe that an MVP will be more salable in a small market?

You say 'regardless of the complexity of the MVP', but that invalidates every point the author was trying to make. Point 1, 2 and 3 in the original article all hinge on the level of effort of the MVP.

Where you worked is not something that changes anything about your position.

I reversed nothing. The author asserts some things that are provably false, then asks 'What are your thoughts? Should your first product be aimed at a small market?'

There is traction because something was built that solves a problem. The size of the market and entrenchment of the incumbents are not the same thing. This person can do everything because the problem and solution are small enough to allow that, not because of the size of the market. Further, attributing causal relationships to the size of the market and the traction is a mistake that leads to sub-optimal strategies.

Those are my thoughts. Do what you will.