Why 'Lovable' Beats 'Viable': Rethinking the MVP

The term "Minimum Viable Product" is everywhere in the startup world. The idea is simple: build the smallest version that works, launch it, and learn from what happens. Is that really the best approach though?

We think it's missing something crucial.

The Problem with "Viable"

Viable means "capable of working successfully." That's a pretty low bar. A product can be viable and still be:

• Frustrating to use
• Forgettable
• Something users tolerate rather than enjoy

When you focus only on making something viable, you often get a product that works but doesn't spark joy.

That's where "Lovable" comes in

What if, instead of asking "what's the minimum that works?" we asked "what's the minimum that delights?"

The difference is subtle but profound:

Viable: Does it function? Lovable: Does it feel good?

Viable: Will users complete the task? Lovable: Will users want to come back?

Viable: Is it bug-free? Lovable: Is it joyful?

Less Features, More Polish

Building something lovable doesn't mean adding more features. It usually means doing less, but doing it really well.

Rather than launching 10 average features, focus on 3 that are really well done. Instead of just making the interface work, make it feel smooth and thoughtfully crafted.

The 7-Day Constraint

At Minimum Lovable Product, we set a 7-day deadline to launch. This constraint forces us to focus only on what truly matters.

We can't build everything, so we focus on building what will make someone smile.

The Bottom Line

Your MVP doesn't have to be a rough prototype that you apologize for. It can be small AND delightful. Simple AND polished.

That's what we mean by Minimum Lovable Product.

*Have an idea you want to make lovable? Get in touch.*