tl;dr: Yes, velocity is more important than speed, but pacing is even more important than velocity.
The Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is a core tenet of the Lean Startup methodology proposed by Eric Ries. The MVP approach has been used extensively over the last decade and is widely regarded as step one for product development. In simple terms, it advocates shipping as few features as possible (i.e. least effort) to generate validated user feedback.
Today, tools like Bolt and Lovable have made it easier to launch MVPs in seconds (yes, seconds) and with no coding experience. While this should be a good thing in theory, it only amplifies the inherent issues with the MVP approach.
The MVP is part of a broader ‘move fast’ playbook which prioritises speed and ‘efficiency’ over sufficiency. In reality, releasing a product to get feedback is not only jumping the gun, but rather inefficient.
In many cases, the MVP is a half-baked solution stemming from not knowing what to build:
- If building for an unfamiliar industry, the focus should be on knowing users holistically where possible. This means understanding not just their product needs, but any psychological assumptions which could provide insights regarding user acquisition, retention and churn. The founders of SQUIRE, the barbershop management system, ran a barbershop themselves to understand what was needed.
- If building for a familiar industry or market, the focus should be on what’s missing based on firsthand observations, aiming to verify or falsify these observations on a larger scale. It’s entirely possible five features are needed and the minimal approach risks insufficiency. Shipping two features, even if they are two of five fundamental features required by users, may still fall short and fail to validate.
The MVP approach also presupposes a lack of competition:
- Assuming alternative products currently exist, it’s actually inefficient to launch with minimal features.
- Assuming alternative products do not currently exist, building a moat from Day 1 is important as competition is inevitable.[1] Simple products can be replaced simply as well.
Product taste plays a role pre- and not post-launch and the Minimum Desirable Product approach aligns more closely with efficiency at its core whilst being slightly more ambitious than considering viability alone. As mentioned earlier, shipping MVPs in minutes means viable is the bare minimum and simply neither worthwhile nor sustainable these days.
I believe the v1.0.0 approach is a more promising alternative for the long-term use cases where an MVP may oversimplify development. This involves building with relative conviction from research and firsthand lived experiences to ensure all bases are covered.[2]
A fully developed V1 can create a stronger first impression, which helps build customer trust and solidifies brand perception. Users are more likely to take the product seriously and stick around if it feels like a well-thought-out, fully functional offering rather than a basic prototype. This also ensures focus on building features that can be built upon long-term, whether advancing to v1.2.1 or scaling to v3. While the focus needn’t be on reaching 1-100, the decisions made at 0-1 are crucial in securing a worthwhile future.
[1] Assuming, of course, the intent to last in the market.
[2] It’s not always the case but ideal where possible.