As the name implies, the Minimum Viable Product exists as a way to build the least amount necessary to start generating enough revenue to keep the business viable while you expand the scope of the product to realize your full vision. The MVP isn't for proving the market, but rather capturing a small segment of the market to fund expansion into the much larger market. The validation that there is a market should take place before creating the MVP, like you say.
Proving what needs to be proven is the role of the prototype. That can also be an important step on your journey, but the MVP is about building a product that is considered viable. Literally. If you don't yet know what is viable in the market, how could you even begin to build something that is viable? You don't yet know what viable means.
I've had this argument before, from the same side you're coming at it from, and I was wrong.
It's really not about building a viable product in that sense - the Dropbox demo video is the classic example of an MVP that isn't a "product" as such.
The Dropbox demo video was a prototype at best, and probably more accurately thought of as an advertisement. Definitely not a product, let alone a viable one. MVP meaning "something I did to make my business successful" isn't meaningful. The first version of Dropbox that landed into users hands and started to generate revenue could be accurately thought of as an MVP. It didn't do everything imaginable, but did just enough that customers wanted to pay for the service, allowing the business to grow into something more.
> A minimum viable product (MVP) is the most pared down version of a product that can still be released. Product demos, crowdfunding projects and landing pages are all common examples of MVPs.
> I know exactly what you mean, but this is not what Eric Rees means by the term.
Frank Robinson coined the Minimum Viable Product. This is what he had to say about it:
"The MVP is the right-sized product for your company and your customer. It is big enough to cause adoption, satisfaction and sales, but not so big as to be bloated and risky."
Steve Blank is credited with popularizing the term. Here he emphasizes that the MVP is about reaching sustainability for the company. What he calls an 'MVP tree', which produces potential MVP candidates, may be closer to what we're discussing here.
"An MVP tree is a way of methodically breaking your mission into smaller components and formulating MVP candidates that may get your company sustainable and scalable."
Ries, whoever he is, was free to make up his own definition, just as I can define the sky to be the hot molten lava deep inside the earth, but his definition does not match the usage of its originator nor is it in alignment with how (most) everyone else uses the term.
> Ries, whoever he is, was free to make up his own definition, just as I can define the sky to be the hot molten lava deep inside the earth, but his definition does not match the usage of its originator nor is it in alignment with how (most) everyone else uses the term.
It would be very at odds with the current use of the term MVP to define what dropbox did as not an MVP.
This isn't becoming hugely productive, so I'll leave it where I started - I've had this argument before from your side, and the dropbox video is an MVP. It is not a niche view.
My understanding of Flexport’s journey is the same as this. Ryan had insight into the fact that shipping stuff across the globe is difficult from his previous businesses. He created a landing page offering to import shipments into the U.S., first shipment free, and had a couple major signups. He had someone build him a prototype and he continued to validate his idea while he waited for an import license. Flexport did all 4 MVP steps listed above, but they also identified and established a moat early on.
