> Maybe author is conflating MVP with "build and they'll come". They're quite different ideas, although are frequently seen together in the same minds.
I think the author is pointing out that other people are conflating the ideas. I don't think the author advocates building a fully-fledged 1.0 product before getting real-world feedback.
I've worked for startups that kept shouting "MVP, MVP" for each new feature (and customer) we built. What we got in return for that was a heap of half-finished features, lots of technical debt — and not a single happy customer.
Then you weren’t building MVPs, because V stands for “viable”.
Devs I’ve worked with will sometimes hear “MVP” and think “prototype”. Not really sure why. An MVP needs polish, it’s just a way of keeping a narrow focus and avoiding bike shedding.
I think the author is pointing out that other people are conflating the ideas. I don't think the author advocates building a fully-fledged 1.0 product before getting real-world feedback.
I've worked for startups that kept shouting "MVP, MVP" for each new feature (and customer) we built. What we got in return for that was a heap of half-finished features, lots of technical debt — and not a single happy customer.