Hacker News Reader

Comment by O__________O | Hacker News Reader

Part of the problem with the whole “Minimum Viable X” (MVX) is that it’s highly context specific to the point the definition varies from founder to founder and from user to user. I have yet to see a repeatable process for knowing if based on a specific situation if you’re currently under or over a true minimal viable X - or for the matter, assuming you understand the product space and related market, how to articulate to another how MVX and MVX2 for the same general intended end use compare; where MVX & MVX2 are either competing solutions or next evolution in MVX. Lastly, MVX generally significantly precede discovering product-market fit, but product-market fit in the end is the true MVX.

Said another way, most the MVX topic is about what not to do, which is helpful, but is not necessarily means to make progress on what to do.

View on HN

Indeed.

Perhaps I misunderstood the general gist of Minimum Viable Product, but I thought it originated as a kind of test to determine whether what you had was actually a Product, and not just a one-off solution, or a piece of software, or some process that only a handful of people would ever actually pay for and use (hence the Viable part). Minimum was just guidance to not over-invest into any single part of the overall whole until all of the parts necessary for the Product were known. All of this would always be very specific to the particular Product.

Most people hear this advice and think it means they get to decide to cut corners, but what it actually means is that only your customers can tell you which corners they actually want; you never get to decide that for yourself.

To me a MVP is designed largely to be the first step after speaking to customers to validate what they say versus what the do. After you see what they’re actually doing, then you talk to them again and repeat process where each future action attempts to increase odds of building a sustainable, preferably high-growth, business.

Interesting! It seems like you view MVP as the process whereas I view it as a milestone (something like the bare-minimum version of “default alive”.)

>> I have yet to see a repeatable process for knowing if based on a specific situation if you’re currently under or over a true minimal viable X

Isn't the answer that shipping the thing is the only test? By shipping you figure out what's missing.

No. What you are describing is market research and it could be done a lot cheaper by not actually developing and shipping real software. Steve Jobs has a lot to say about what market research can tell you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U3w5Blv0Lg

Your starting point actually matters quite a bit. Iterating to success through market research would be nearly impossible if you chose a bad starting point. Unless of course you go back to the drawing board each iteration. But in this case you aren't really testing and iterating, but trying out whole new things each round. I believe that if you are iterating in this way, then you truly don't have "it". You don't have whatever unique experience, product vision, perspective, etc is required to make the new thing that is going to disrupt the market you are trying to enter. You can't just keep trying things and get lucky in this way. At least not where we are in the cycle right now with software.

Another common way of criticizing the approach you’re referring to is commonly referred to as — “Build it and they will come” - which more often than not is done in a way that’s completely disconnected from reality.

I think "build it and they will come" has most of it's criticism focused on a lack of plan for doing more than making something. It is certainly okay to believe that you have a v0 for something brand new that once people lay eyes on it, they just need to have it. But that doesn't mean just building it is 99% of the work. It's more like 50%. And yes, more often than not the v0 does not work out this way. But this is the nature of doing bold things. They mostly fail. I think the startup ecosystem has sent the wrong message by saying it doesn't matter what v0 is, just keep improving it and you'll win.

In the musician world, "build it and they will come" would refer to creating a really great band by practicing in your parents basement, but never playing shows in the real world. You aren't going to grow a fanbase by playing in the basement. But you could be a damn fucking good band playing music that everyone needs to hear. There is a lot of work that takes you out of the basement. 50%. But if the first 50% isn't there no amount of leaving the basement is going land you anywhere.

Lack of planning has nothing to do with “build it and they will come” — and everything to do with communicating with the customer to understand what would make them come and why. Beyond that, this is not about getting a percentage done, but 100% of the least viable amount of “done” complete that would result in a predefined behavior; spend money, use product everyday, etc.

Musician equivalent might be identifying few notable bands in a given genre and actually understanding which fans spend money, why, where they listen to it, what other music they listen to, how they discover new music, what songs they share with people, etc; never done music R&D, so honestly stretch, in part because I know distribution is way more important than the actual music, but that doesn’t change that ultimately it’s the fans listening to music that matter. The “build it and they will come” would be making full album with music videos before ever letting single fan or peer familiar with fan tastes listen to the music.

communicating with the customer = marketing = a task beyond making the thing = my point.

The extract email from linkedin can be downloaded as a CSV file for automation purposes. The software https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/email-finder-getpr... can be used to automate email campaigns and track leads from start to finish

No. It’s called customer development, product development, design thinking, human centered design, etc — and has nothing to do with marketing, which is something you do after you have a defined product or service. Sales has more in common with it than marketing.

Customer development, product development, design thinking, human centered design -- those all sound like made up activities you tell your VCs you are doing because you don't have product market fit with v0. Build a new v0 or go home.

Simple answer is no, there is no answer, it’s never ending optimization problem that free ends way before product market fit is found and even if market market fit is found, it’s matter time before market shifts.

Another way of imagining it is if you look back in time, where hindsight is 20/20, assuming that as an observer you were aware of all factors. Magically you have a “Time Machine” and travel back time knowing the prefect way to do everything. Problem is the dynamics of the situation would evolve rapidly evolve and it would likely never stop evolving no matter how many times you completed the loop.

What?!? You mean I can't just implement what I read in a book? ;-)

I mean, for myself, I am able to describe it in single sentence, though likely of no use to anyone else; that being:

Using observe-orient-decide-act-loop, minimize entropy creation for yourself, while maximizing future opportunities available relative to overall ecosystem dynamics.

To me "future opportunities available relative to overall ecosystem dynamics" reads as an euphemism for entropy, so that your advice seems to boil down to "let the others fuck up". Not a ineffective advice at that.

There’s no single optimal generalizable path, though completely agree that accrue value, move slow, reduce loses, do nothing, etc. — are frequently overlooked as more effective paths forward.

Better to parse it as "position yourself to be better positioned in the future as the environment changes" I think.

Maybe, though this is assumed via “overall ecosystem dynamics” and “ maximizing future opportunities available” - since in some situations having a less optimal position in the near future is the optimal response long term, though maybe you’re including “better” to cover that, but then to me better feels redundant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com