HACKER Q&A
📣 fben

Is the MVP required in this case?


When you have a new idea, you have to think about the market’s needs and your project’s viability. The best way to do this is to start with the MVP, a stripped-down version of your product that helps you confirm whether there’s enough interest in your concept and how you plan to execute it.

But if you want to build something similar to an existing product, with a few upgrades and validated ideas, should you still build the MVP? if yes, what kind of MVP should you build? And do you need to perform idea validation before development?

  👤 codingdave Accepted Answer ✓
If you are coming into an existing market, then you aren't building an MVP to validate the idea, you are building an MVP to match the table stakes -- the feature set that is the minimum set of features that even put you as a viable player in the market. Match that in an MVP, then add on your differentiators.

I've watched teams focus on differentiators before table stakes, and waste literally millions of dollars and years of work, expecting one or two cool features to win the market... but that is not how it works.

👤 brudgers
One reason to build an MVP is to force founders to talk to users.

The reason this is important is many founders will avoid doing it.

Founders avoid it because talking to users is mostly hearing rejection.

One of the ways founders avoid talking to users is to invent arguments about why it is not necessary to talk to them.

Another attraction is inventing arguments is easier than finding and talking to users.

Good luck.