The term “Minimum Viable Product” has taken a beating in recent years. Critics claim it’s outdated, vague, or invites mediocrity. But done right, an MVP remains one of the most effective tools for validating problem-solution fit. The problem isn’t with the concept of an MVP; it’s with how it’s misunderstood and misapplied. A well-defined MVP is still the best way to prove you’re solving a real problem, for real users, with a real solution.
We've seen countless founders struggle to define or execute on an MVP – not because the concept is broken, but because it's misunderstood. At Highline Beta, we coach startups to focus on validating problems before touching code. That means customer interviews, behavioral observations, and assumption testing with throwaway prototypes. Only once we have real evidence of desirability do we move forward.
Too often, founders confuse MVPs with marketing tests; a landing page won’t prove that your product works. It might prove interest, but not stickiness or retention. So our bar is simple: if it can’t be used to solve the problem, it’s not an MVP. The MVP is not the first experiment; it’s the first thing that actually delivers value. With that definition in mind, we still believe MVPs can be an effective tool for startups, and should continue to be used as such.
Q: What does “viable” really mean?
A: Viable = users adopt, use, and pay - either with money, data, or attention. Without that, it’s not proving value.
Q: Can MVPs be complex?
A: Yes. Sometimes “minimum” still requires complexity - if that’s the smallest version needed to prove value.
Read the full article on Focused Chaos
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.