Mediocre Vague Prototype

In the hallowed halls of product development and startup culture, the concept of the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is treated as gospel. It’s the cornerstone of the Lean Startup methodology, a sacred text for founders, and a go-to buzzword in boardrooms. The idea is simple and seductive: build the most basic version of your product, get it into the hands of early adopters, and use their feedback to iterate.

And I am here to tell you that in its modern application, it is a dangerous and destructive lie.

Let me be clear: I don't hate the theory. The original definition, as coined by Eric Ries (1), describes the version of a new product that allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning with the least amount of effort. It’s a tool for scientific inquiry.

The problem is, almost no one builds that MVP. Instead, the term has been corrupted, becoming a justification for shipping subpar, unfinished, and ultimately harmful products. The acronym still stands, but its meaning has been tragically mutated.

The "M" Now Stands for "Mediocre"

The modern interpretation of "Minimum" has little to do with a focused, strategic reduction of scope. Instead, it has become an excuse for releasing a product that is buggy, slow, and frustrating to use. The focus has shifted from "what is the minimum we need to learn?" to "what is the absolute minimum we can get away with shipping?".

This approach ignores a fundamental truth: your first impression is often your only impression. When a user interacts with your "minimum" product and finds it to be a cobbled-together mess, they don't see a clever learning experiment. They see a bad product from a company that doesn't care. They churn, and they are unlikely to ever return.

The "V" Now Stands for "Vague"

What does "Viable" even mean? In theory, it means the product should be able to solve a core problem for a specific user, creating enough value that they are willing to use it.

In practice, "Viability" is often an afterthought. Teams become so obsessed with the "Minimum" part that they fail to define what constitutes a viable solution. Does it technically function? Yes. Is it a viable solution to a real-world problem? The team often has no idea. You cannot get "validated learning" if the product isn't viable enough for genuine use. A non-viable product doesn't give you clean data; it gives you noise.

The "P" Now Stands for "Prototype"

The most egregious sin of the modern MVP is that it is often just a public-facing prototype. It's built on a foundation of technical debt, with shortcuts taken at every turn under the banner of "moving fast." The promise is always that "we'll fix it later."

This rarely happens. The shoddy foundation of the MVP becomes the permanent foundation of the company's tech stack. Engineers are forced to build complex features on top of a fragile base, leading to slower development cycles, persistent bugs, and plummeting team morale. The "temporary" MVP becomes a permanent anchor, dragging the product down for years to come.

The Antidote: A Better Philosophy

I am not advocating for a return to the waterfall model of building in a silo for years. The need for speed and learning is real. But we must abandon the toxic MVP mindset. Thankfully, a better philosophy has been articulated by others who have seen these same dysfunctions.

One of the most compelling alternatives is the SLC—Simple, Lovable, and Complete—model, a concept powerfully articulated by Jason Cohen (2), the founder of WP Engine. It's part of a broader movement, including the similar idea of the Minimum Lovable Product (MLP), that pushes back against mediocrity. The SLC model reframes the goal:


The goal of an SLC is not just to learn; it's to provide undeniable value from day one. It respects the user's time and intelligence. It builds a solid foundation for future development and establishes a brand reputation for quality, not speed.

It’s time to kill the MVP as we know it. Stop celebrating the launch of mediocre, vague prototypes. Let's start building products that customers can trust and that we can be proud of. Let's start building Simple, Lovable, and Complete experiences.

Further Reading