The word "MVP" gets thrown around so much that it's lost meaning.
Some people think MVP means "barely functional." Others think it means "minimum features." And still others treat it as an excuse to ship 垃圾.
None of these are right.
A good MVP is not about doing less. It's about doing the right things—the things that teach you what you need to learn—and skipping everything else.
Let me show you what I mean.
The Five Characteristics of a Great MVP
After studying hundreds of startups—from multi-billion dollar successes to quiet failures—I've identified five traits that separate great MVPs from mediocre ones:
- Focused: Solves ONE problem exceptionally well
- Valuable: Delivers real value, not just a demo
- Learnable: Designed to generate insights, not just users
- Usable: People can actually figure it out
- Testable: You can measure whether it's working
The best MVPs have all five. Most failed MVPs are missing at least one.
Characteristic #1: Focused (The One Thing Rule)
Here's a test: Can you describe your MVP in one sentence?
If you can't, it's not focused.
Airbnb's MVP was: "People can pay to stay in strangers' homes."
That's it. No reviews. No booking system. No messaging. No hosts verification. No smart pricing. Just a way to list a space and a way to pay.
Slack's MVP was: "Team members can send messages to each other."
No channels. No threads. No integrations. No emoji reactions. No file sharing. Just real-time messaging.
Uber's MVP was: "You can summon a ride with your phone."
No fare estimates. No driver ratings. No trip history. No loyalty programs. Just the core action: tap, car comes, you ride.
The Focus Test
Ask yourself:
- What is the ONE action a user must be able to complete?
- Can I describe this in one sentence?
- Does every feature support that one action?
If you're adding features that don't directly support your core action, you're not building an MVP. You're building scope creep.
Characteristic #2: Valuable (It Actually Works)
Here's where many founders fail: they build something that looks like a product but doesn't actually solve a problem.
A good MVP delivers value. Not potential value. Not theoretical value. Actual value that users can feel.
WhatsApp is a perfect example. When it launched in 2009, it did exactly one thing: let you send messages to other people. But it did this one thing incredibly well:
- Messages arrived instantly
- No advertising clutter
- Simple, intuitive interface
- Worked internationally
Users got value from day one. They could send a message and it worked. That's all that mattered.
Compare this to the countless MVPs that launch with:
- Broken sign-up flows
- Confusing interfaces
- Features that don't actually work
- "Coming soon" placeholders
These aren't MVPs. These are science projects.
The Value Test
Before you launch your MVP, ask:
- If I were a user, would I get value from this TODAY?
- Can I complete the core task without frustration?
- Does it solve the problem I claim to solve?
If the answer is "sort of" or "not yet," keep building.
Characteristic #3: Learnable (Built for Insights)
The purpose of an MVP is not to acquire users. It's to learn.
A good MVP is designed to answer specific questions:
- Who is our real customer?
- What problem do they actually have?
- What solution works?
- What features matter?
- What will they pay for?
Dropbox understood this perfectly. Their MVP wasn't even software—it was a 3-minute video that demonstrated the idea. The video asked one question: "Do people want this?"
The answer came fast: 75,000 people signed up for the waitlist. That learning shaped everything Dropbox did next.
Groupon is another masterclass. Before building anything, they created a simple WordPress site that listed deals. When someone clicked "buy," they manually processed the purchase via email. No automated system—just enough to test if people would actually buy.
They learned: Yes, they would. Groupon went on to become a $13 billion company.
The Learning Test
Before you build, define your learning goals:
- What assumptions am I testing?
- What data will prove or disprove them?
- How will I collect that data?
- What will I do with the answers?
If you can't answer these questions, you're building a product, not an experiment.
Characteristic #4: Usable (People Figure It Out)
I watched a founder demo his MVP once. It took him 15 minutes to explain how to use it.
"That's not an MVP," I said. "That's a tutorial."
A good MVP is intuitive. Users shouldn't need a manual. They shouldn't need a call with support. They shouldn't need to read a 10-page FAQ.
When Instagram launched in 2010, it took about 5 seconds to understand:
- Take a photo
- Apply a filter (optional)
- Share
That's it. No settings to configure. No profile setup required. No friend requests to send. Just open, shoot, share.
Within 24 hours, it had 25,000 users.
When Tinder launched, the learning curve was zero. Swipe right if you like, left if you don't. No explaining required.
The Usability Test
Watch someone use your MVP for the first time. Don't help them. Don't explain. Just watch.
Can they:
- Figure out the main action without asking for help?
- Complete that action in under 30 seconds?
- Understand what just happened?
If not, simplify. Aggressively simplify.
Characteristic #5: Testable (You Can Measure It)
Here's a question I ask founders constantly: "How will you know if your MVP is working?"
Blank stares are the most common response.
A good MVP has clear success metrics. Not vanity metrics—actionable metrics that tell you whether you're on the right track.
The Amazon MVP (originally a book website called CAD) tested one thing: Would people buy books online? They measured: Number of orders. That was it. Every other metric was irrelevant.
The Netflix MVP tested: Would people rent DVDs by mail instead of going to Blockbuster? They measured: Subscription signups and retention. Simple.
The Zapier MVP tested: Would people pay to automate workflows between web apps? They measured: Conversion rate from free trial to paid.
The Testability Test
Define your success metrics before you launch:
Metric Type | Examples | What It Tells You |
|---|---|---|
| Acquisition | Signups, waitlist joins | Do people want this? |
| Activation | Completed profile, performed core action | Will people actually use it? |
| Retention | Day 1, 7, 30 retention | Is this a real solution or novelty? |
| Revenue | Conversion rate, ARPU | Will people pay? |
| Referral | NPS, shares, invites | Is this delightful enough to recommend? |
Pick 1-2 metrics per stage. Track them obsessively.
Real MVP Examples: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Let me show you what these characteristics look like in practice.
The Good: Spotify (2011)
The MVP: Listen to music online with a social component.
Focus: One core action—play music instantly.
Value: No downloading, no DRM, millions of songs.
Learnability: Built to learn: Who listens? How much? What features drive engagement?
Usability: Search for a song, click play. Done.
Testability: Tracks listening time, skip rate, social interactions.
Result: Grew from 0 to 1 million users in 6 months.
The Good: Gmail (2004)
The MVP: Email with 1GB storage and search.
Focus: Solved the biggest email problem: running out of space and finding old emails.
Value: Never delete anything. Search everything.
Learnability: Tested in beta for years, refining based on user feedback.
Usability: Familiar email interface with a powerful twist.
Testability: Monitored adoption, engagement, and switching behavior.
Result: Took 5 years to reach 100M users, but built an unbeatable foundation.
The Bad: Quibi (2020)
The MVP: Short-form, premium video content for mobile.
Focus: They had focus—Hollywood-quality content in 10-minute chunks.
Value: The problem was, nobody wanted it. The value proposition wasn't compelling enough.
Learnability: They didn't do enough validation before launching. No MVP phase, no beta, just a $1.8 billion launch.
Usability: The content was good. The experience was fine. But the reason to pay $8/month when YouTube was free? Unclear.
Testability: Should have tested willingness to pay with a smaller experiment.
Result: Died after 6 months. Lesson: Value proposition matters more than production quality.
The Ugly: Theranos (2003-2015)
The MVP: A device that could run hundreds of blood tests from a single drop of blood.
Focus: They claimed to have focus, but...
Value: It didn't actually work. They shipped a product that didn't deliver value.
Learnability: They avoided testing. Kept the technology "secret." Never validated with independent researchers.
Usability: The device never worked reliably. Patients got false results.
Testability: Refused to do proper validation. If they had, they'd have discovered the problem early.
Result: Complete fraud. Lesson: A product that doesn't work isn't an MVP—it's a scam.
The MVP Quality Spectrum
Not all MVPs are created equal. Here's how to think about the spectrum:
Minimum Lovable Product (MLP)
Some founders argue for MLP over MVP: build something people actually love, not just tolerate.
Examples: Supercell games, Apple products, Notion
When it works: Consumer products where delight drives adoption. When you have resources to polish.
Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
The classic approach: build the minimum to learn.
Examples: Airbnb, Uber, WhatsApp, Zapier
When it works: B2B products, crowded markets, limited resources. When learning speed matters more than polish.
Disposable MVP
The fastest approach: build something you'll throw away.
Examples: Manual processing, landing page tests, concierge services
When it works: When you need to validate demand before building anything. When the market is completely unproven.
The Anti-Patterns: What Makes a BAD MVP
Let me be direct about what goes wrong.
Anti-Pattern #1: Feature Factory
You're not building an MVP. You're building a backlog.
Symptoms: Long feature lists, many "must-have" items, constant scope creep.
Fix: Cut ruthlessly. What is the ONE thing? Keep only what supports that.
Anti-Pattern #2: Perfectionism Disguised as Quality
You keep refining instead of launching.
Symptoms: "Just one more round of testing." "We need to polish the onboarding." "What about edge cases?"
Fix: Set a launch date. Commit to it. Launch on that date regardless of polish.
Anti-Pattern #3: "We'll Figure Out Users Later"
You build without talking to real users.
Symptoms: Assumptions drive decisions. No user interviews. No testing.
Fix: Talk to 10 users before writing any code. Then test with 10 more after.
Anti-Pattern #4: The Scope Creep Spiral
Every new feature makes the MVP less viable.
Symptoms: "While we're at it, we could add..." "Users might want..." "It wouldn't take long to..."
Fix: Create a "parking lot" list. Any new feature goes there. Launch first. Add later.
The Checklist: Is Your MVP Ready?
Before you launch, run through this checklist:
| Question | Yes/No |
|---|---|
Can you describe your MVP in one sentence? | |
Does it solve ONE real problem? | |
Would you use it yourself TODAY? | |
Can a new user figure it out without help? | |
Have you defined your success metrics? | |
Have you talked to at least 10 potential users? | |
Is there a clear path from MVP to v1? | |
Can you launch within your budget and timeline? |
If you answered "No" to more than two of these, keep refining.
The Bottom Line
A good MVP is not about doing the bare minimum. It's about doing the right minimum—the things that generate the insights you need—and having the discipline to stop there.
The founders who succeed are not the ones who build the most features. They're the ones who build just enough to learn, then act on what they learn.
Your MVP doesn't need to be perfect. It needs to be focused, valuable, learnable, usable, and testable.
Get those five things right, and everything else follows.
Ready to Build a Great MVP?
At Startupbricks, we've helped dozens of founders define and build MVPs that actually work—focused enough to learn from, valuable enough to delight users, and testable enough to measure.
Whether you're:
- Validating an idea for the first time
- Struggling with scope creep
- Not sure what to build next
- Wanting a second set of eyes on your approach
Let's talk. We help founders build better MVPs—faster.