Topic: Why are all the MVP's CRAPPY? (Read 139 times)

Let's make this post useful for everyone:

- The old way to build a Startup: A bunch of guys get together and decide what the public wants. They raise a lot of money, hire a team of fifty developers and build and uber-product. It has a million features, a cool interface and works in 20 different operative systems. They launch a huge marketing campaign.  They were all wrong, there was not a market for that product, the features are not the ones that the public wanted and the Human Interface guru was not that much of a Guru.

Result: You have spent 10M USD, have no money left, nobody would give you more. You are finished.

- The new way of building a Startup:

1 Build the cheapest and quickest product that has the minimum features that you think the public like. It does not matter if it is ugly or has just two features. Do not try to guess the market.
2 Market this only the people that you think that would most benefit from the product, preferably in person, and get feedback as soon as possible.

2.1 - Check: Is the market there? Do the users appreciate your product? Do you need to "pivot" your market, features, utility.... even your whole concept?

3 Prioritise the features that the users have asked for. Develop one or two of those.

4 Hit the market again - the early adopters only, limited and controlled.

5 Rinse and repeat.

In fewer words: Spend carefully, fail cheap and quick if that is what has to happen. If you fail, your investors still believe in you, as you have learnt at the minimum possible cost.

Yeah, just wanted to post the same. There's a reason it's called MVP 

Get more familiar with the concept of Lean Development and Minimum Viable Product. Particularly with the word "Minimum".

I'm just wondering why to date none of the ICOs which raised huge amounts of money have have quality MVP's? are they exit scams, do they not care about UX/UI usability?

Anybody care to shed some light on the issue?