> while maintaining a semblance of what it is used for.
and how do you know how it will be used for and by who without actually talking to users and understanding if, why and how they will actually use it?
said differently, would you agree that market risk (there's no one who cares about the product at all) is higher than the product risk (we can't build the product)?
The main goal is to find Product-Market fit as a first priority. This is done through prototyping, mockups, user-testing, etc, etc. Often this will be considered/called 'making an MVP'. This is an ongoing iterative process and the phase ends when you know what the core function or value proposition of the product is and who it is for.
At that point you move to the phase of building a higher quality (hopefully still very feature limited) v1.0 product.
Agreed.
I want to see whether you realize that in the "Product-Market fit", the only thing you control is Product - you can manage/change/affect it as a builder.
However, you do not control the Market.
So, would it stand to logic that reducing the thing that you do not control - Market Risk (there's no one who cares about the product, we are going to build, at all) should be much higher priority than the Product Risk (we can't build the product)?
Not entirely true. Part of finding Product-Market fit isn't only to shape your product, it's also to possibly redefine your target user as well. Often you will discover a use-case that is stronger than the one you set out with at the start with only minor changes to the original product idea.