having an MVP is not enough anymore

I posted 1 second ago a question about it, this is a good response for my post 🤣😅. Thanks

I think you have the wrong definition of "minimal". "Minimal" can also mean the minimum required to help people get to the "aha" moment where they accomplish their goal with your software and want more. Things like design have nothing to do (except for the halo effect) with it.

Funny, I didn't know of MAP, but in the Netherlands, we started using the concept of MLP (Minimal Lovable PRoduct), it is the entire same thing. In the end, you should probably focus on the least features with the most value.

Lots of good thoughts here.

My $0.02 - it’s an MVP/MAP if it solves the core problem (whether it looks sexy or not) - sometimes that means a nice UI, other times that means reliable business logic, and other times (though I doubt often) both. In my case, reliable business logic and performance outweigh anything fancier than standard Bootstrap as design.
My first users are people I’ve recruited personally and understand that they get to be part of the feedback loop (beta testing).

There is another term for this that's been around or nearly a decade: MLP - Minimum Lovable Product. There's a nice article that describes the idea here.

We tried to do this with Squeaky essentially as we thought this was especially important because we were entering a crowded market. It's kind of too early to tell if it's working, but we do have people regularly telling us they love the product and/or it's better than some of the existing tools on the market they've used - that wasn't happening in our first release where it was frankly not worth spending time using haha.

SLC - Simple Lovable Complete - I like this version of the same type of thinking - from an article written in 2017.

SLC - Simple, Lovable, Complete vs MVP -

https://blog.asmartbear.com/slc.html

I think it depends on how big the differentiation is from the solutions that exist on the market. If it’s small then a MAP is definitely needed otherwise a MVP will suffice for a large differentiation or completely new way of solving the problem.

I like the phrase from 37signals where they say “make a half product, not a half-assed product”. In my mind it was always synonymous with MVP, just phrased more clearly.

this is a clear case of misunderstanding the original concept and creating a fancy term for what in essence was the original point

You have a great point butI think there are several phases to a product. Each with their own value and importance in the life cycle.

• Landing Page 👉 Launch Page 👉 Full SEO optimized Website

• Personal prototype 👉 MVP 👉 MAP 👉 Iterative Production Version.

Let me know what you think.

I think it could also depend on the product type, if it's purely just a utility, for example a product calculating your capital gains tax, users may not care so much about the UI, and might even prefer if there is no UI at all! eg a chrome extension that pulls transaction statements from your broker.

Keep in mind that everyone's project is different. If you have a mobile app, this is 100% correct. — MVPs don't cut it. But if you have, say, a SaaS product and indie hackers are you target market, then it's MVP all day long.

In fact, I'd say for most of us, MVPs are the way to go.

From a project management perspective, this is dangerous. "Viable" is at least somewhat objective. "Awesome" is completely subjective. So telling people they need a minimum awesome product could essentially mean anything. And it will tend to lead to delayed launches and lots of scope creep.

don't loose yourself by building too many features instead of talking to people, finding customers and a problem that really matters to them

Definitely agree that the standard for MVP's are much higher nowadays and MAPs are much more appropriate. However, I'm curious to get your thoughts on whether a Beta should be a MAP or a more well developed version?

I think fabform.io is a MAP but I might be a bit bias here.

MAP! Thanks @elfalehed for giving this concept a name that is in my mind for a longer time now.

From my point of view:

• MVP implements the core functionality and serves to (in)validate assumptions about the value proposition.
• MAP follows after a successful MVP phase in order for the value proposition to gain its full potential. As Mohamed said, UI/UX becomes important (see the Aesthetic-Usability Effect)

Not sure I agree with this. I think that the misconception with MVP is that people think that it must be a product that "kind of works", which is wrong. The idea of an MVP is to have the minimum set of features to solve the problem, and those features must work really well. In my bootstrapper's guide the "Build the MVP" step is only the 4th because before that one must validate the audience, problem, and solution.

The MVP is an outdated concept, so the MAP should take over. The minimal awesome product, unlike an MVP, is focused on building a cult-like fanbase. The MVP product, by comparison, is more likely to reach more people, but convert less of them into hardcore fans of the brand. MAPs are more brand conscious, in that even if the product fails the company or creators are seen in a positive light. When an MVP fails, the creators aren't seen as favorable, since they haven't really converted anyone into followers. Instead, they've got a group of people lukewarm towards their efforts.