Re:The Tyranny of the Minimum Viable Product
by amirmc on Thursday April 02, 2015 @02:50AM
(#9309008)
Even early adopters expect the products they use to do the thing advertised. I don't believe there are many paying customers who'd be happy with, say, a lighting system that only works half the time.
The main difference from my perspective is that the bar for 'Minimal' and 'Viable' in hardware is much higher than for software.
I think the exchange battery=wifi reset scale is a good example. An early adopter will think "weeee my scale can talk to the internet" and then reconfigure when the battery runs out. It's kind of expected as a trade of for being one of the first people to have a scale that talks to the internet. Someone that is more of a mainstream customer will get very annoyed by this (why doesn't it "just work"). I think the OP is leaning early adopter (clearly willing to try new stuff) but he expects mainstream quality...that's a common sign of mismarketed products (oversold the maturity)
The rpoposed solution from browsing the comments here seems to be to "just make the products better, they are not that good". I tihnk I disagree. The products as mentioned seem fine as long as they are clearly marketed as early adopter material. The failure to do so is the problem. It's valuable to collect that annoyance and improve the product for the mainstream version.
tl;dr: MVP isn't the problem. It's failing to communicate that the product is more of an MVP than a polished product.