The death of the Minimum Viable Product
In his book, Lean Startup, Eric Ries popularized the concept of an MVP — Minimum Viable Product. This concept has been instrumental in helping millions of entrepreneurs launch great companies, save lots of money and avoid scope creep that kills companies that stay in prolonged ‘stealth’ mode. However, this has also resulted in a ton of poor products that have ended in the ‘startup graveyard’.
I think Apple does MVPs very well. When the first iPhone was released in 2007, it had very few features. However, the features it did have, worked almost perfectly. As a summer intern at Apple working on the iPhone Ops team, I got to attend an executive speaker series where all the interns spent 1 hour with the SVPs at the company (Jonny Ive, Eddy Cue, Tim Cook, etc). One of the interns in the audience asked an SVP (I believe it was Jonny Ive, Chief Design Officer at Apple) why the original iPhone didn’t allow users to Copy/Paste — which seems like such a useful feature. Ive replied that it’s not that we forgot to put in that feature, Apple hadn’t figured out how to do it well, and so they didn’t include it at all.
I think that instead of MVP, designers should think about Minimum Viable Experience (MVE). When developing a product/service, think about the fewest features you need that are critical to the user experience and ensure that those features are bug-free, well thought out and a pleasure to use.
UberEats is a great example of a MVE done right. The UberEats app offers a no-frills experience that does just enough. The App doesn’t show order history, trending meals or advanced categorizations. It has beautiful high-res images of most meals, basic categorization and offers a key feature that allows you to follow-along with your driver so you know when your food is coming.
So the next time you think MVP, think MVE — fewer features designed well. Think hard to justify adding any new feature, but if you decide to put it in, make sure it works beautifully.
More on this and other product ideas at Productiq.io
The first Ford cars were crap. Horrible MVE. Yet customers actually buried them so they would have a supply when Ford stoped making them. It seems like getting to market first had its advantages. I’m not arguing for crap, I’m arguing for facts. Does it work well enough to be accepted. I’m pretty sure Microsoft might agree that fast movers have an intangible advantage.
Quality vs. Quantity. This is why Android was not doing as well as IOS did at the beginning, I guess.
Good point. You would think that "Viable" in MVP would ensure that a good UX is built in without resorting to a separate MVE focus. Unfortunately, it's often not the case.
Nice! MVE or MLP( Minimum Lovable Product)
I think that MVP and MVE can be thought of distinct, when we consider the end-users acceptance of the product. How much is ROI dependent on end-user willingness to use the solution? I think that changes the conversation completely. Whether we call it MVP or MVE, doesn't matter to me, so long as we create awareness of solution with the end-user, communicate "what's in it for me" so they can develop their own desire to learn more about it - and when it's launched, they'll soon demonstrate the ability to use the solution because they've been included and understand why the solution is needed.