Details Matter. Or: Even MVPs need to "get it right"

I think MVP use is getting skewed these days.

Lots of people seem to launch their product under the MVP banner as an excuse for features that are broken or sites that look terrible. However, they're actually launching that MVP to large audiences like "Show HN". It's almost as though they are using MVP as a promotional tool rather than a feedback tool.

Yes, MVP is great, but don't give your MVP to Robert Scoble or HN for that matter. MVP is good for 100 people, not 1000.

Wow, way to fail to understand the point of the Lean Startup methodology. This is a hugely misinformed article.

Applying "fit and finish" before the launch makes sense (if you have a launch at all). But this article seems to suggest that you should do this before you even have a product worth launching. The mindset that generates this article is exactly the kind of misconception that leads to completely useless products that don't serve anyone's purposes (but look very nice and scale great), which is exactly what Eric Ries is arguing against.

There is no magic bullet, it's about finding balance.

Yes, MVP is useful to show people what you're talking about. Also, it helps clarify what you're going for, helps eliminate the unnecessary.

But MVP or not, nobody likes using a product that doesn't work. And you only have one chance to make a first impression (so they say).

Don't release a crappy product to a large audience, but make sure not to spend tons of time on an aspect of a product without having some verification that it's something your market is interested in paying for. Both are true taken together, but it doesn't work if you get too far to one side or the other.

Regardless of whether it's true that MVPs need more polish, it's just not true that it's difficult for a product to stay under the radar. The reason Instagram and Path make good examples of companies gaining publicity right at launch is because they happen to be the companies that gained publicity right at launch. You can't really make a counter-example because by definition we haven't heard of the thousands of companies that are still under the radar.

I'm sure there are plenty of people on Hacker News (including myself) that would love to have the "problem" of too many people discussing our product on Twitter.

No offense but name one HN'er that would ever let Scoble or MA or Tc writers run a startup..

crickets..crickets..

Its not the buzz, its deep knowledge, something this article lacks.