写在前面：本篇文章首发于网站同名微信公众号“枫叶陆移记”，发布时间为2024年04月19日。
在一个科技·商业·杂谈群里，看到有人发了一篇奇绩创坛的文章，贴出来：
其中特意贴出了一段话：
对不完美产品的需求，可能更是刚需
许多创业者有一种倾向：先让产品接近完美再开始与客户沟通。但在创业的初期，这种方法反而应被避免。因为一个尚不完善的产品，如果还能吸引用户使用，很可能意味着它满足了某一核心需求。以最快速度获得用户反馈是更重要的目标。 奇绩创坛
阅读了一下这篇文章，上面这段话是其中的第6条建议“对不完美产品的需求，可能更是刚需”。
我的第一反应是这个逻辑有问题，理由如下：
事实上，一个尚不完善的产品，不会吸引用户使用的，没有如果，直接挂掉。
为了严谨一些，加个限制比率：事实上，一个尚不完善的产品，90%的几率是不会吸引用户使用的，没有如果，直接挂掉。
文中也还提到了MVP，更是需要分市场场景的，绝大部分时候，没有【客户】会等你从一个个滑板车、自行车、摩托车、三轮车、汽车一步步造车的，
接着，群友的解释：
论述者的意思是说，如果痛点足够大，有瑕疵的产品/ 服务也是卖的出去的，如很难打到车的时候，再破旧的车/ 任何差劲的交通工具你也可能会坐的-群友甲
并搬出知名人物霍夫曼（LinkedIn创始人兼投资家）语录：
给我吓一跳，我就知道他要说什么了，产品的MVP模式，但是我一直认为这个模式是没有问题的，在特定情况下还是很OK的，这个特定情况就是：有个巨大的隐藏前提：蓝海！
关于MVP，最经典的莫过于这个图了：
但问题就来了，灵魂之问：
现在的普通或者正常说的创业，哪一个是蓝海？
群友甲：
理论上，创业应该找蓝海市场，问题是，很多蓝海是被创业者自己想象出来的（我就犯过多次这样的错误😥）
没错，这就是很现实的现状，蓝海不是我们想象出来的，更多的是政策、权力、特许、时间、关键人生成的，极少数是市场挖掘出来的。
这么说大家可能难以理解，以《红楼梦》为例，大家认为贾母是慈祥老太太吗？显然大部分人不会，因为贾母正是两府的真正掌舵人，他们家有世袭的爵位、官职，还有核心的各种庄园、良田和生意，这就是蓝海，普通老百姓、其他家族无法取得的。有贾母在一天，他们家的“蓝海”就在一天。
群里的聊天让我想起了一篇文章《译文：MVP已死，MAP当道》，中文译文很好检索到，这里给出两篇比较早的链接：
[译]MVP已死，MAP当道 – 知乎 – https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/34983156
产品理念：MVP已死，MAP当道|互联网|map_网易订阅 – https://www.163.com/dy/article/FLJM74CM0511BBSR.html
但是英文原文很难找到，费了一点时间，也找到一篇，应该是源出处：
The MVP is dead, long life to the MAP. (Minimum Awesome Product) | by Carlos Beneyto | The Startup | Medium – https://medium.com/swlh/the-mvp-is-dead-long-life-to-the-map-minimum-awesome-product-404df90fef7f
作者是来自西班牙的Carlos Beneyto，一位企业家兼产品经理，运营idealista（西班牙别墅和公寓租售平台）和Inmovilla（房地产CRM软件）。
文章于2018年2月发布。
恐怕有人无法查阅，特收录全文如下：
The MVP is dead, long life to the MAP. (Minimum Awesome Product)
Carlos Beneyto Published inThe Startup Medium Feb 5, 2018
I will say this bluntly and without sugar coating … the MVP has died. But you will first need to be placed in that situation. What is the MVP?
MVP: Minimum Viable Product
The minimum viable product (MVP) is a product with enough features to satisfy the initial customers, and provide feedback for future development. Some experts suggest that in B2B, an MVP also means saleable.
“It is not an MVP until it sells. Viable means that you can sell it”.
Yes, this is a copy-paste of a simple definition in Wikipedia. One that I agree with in many aspects. Mainly due to one factor, the analysis. In my opinion a more accurate definition of MVP would be:
The minimum viable product (MVP) is the one that allows us to launch the product with the least amount of features possible so that we can learn and extract relevant information from this trial period and user interaction through a series of metrics and then act based on that data.
The best (and most common) way to explain an MVP is using this famous image.
Image by Henrik Kniberg. Example of MVP.
The approach is simple.
Do you want to make a car? Perfect! Let’s begin the process. How? First a wheel, then another, then another, then the engine, etc…Is there a problem? It will take too long to create the car we want. Solution? First make a skate, then a bicycle, then a motorcycle and then we end up with the car.
Is the process longer? Yes. Is it more viable? Yes of course!
I will not go into detail about the process of an MVP as there is enough information on this. We are here to comment on the death of the MVP, and the reasons that lead me to believe this.
It is difficult to do anything that is good, pretty and cheap. At the end there is the need to prioritize when making an MVP. The costs have to be low, at the end of the day it’s a simple “test”, but…
Are potential customers willing to lose quality (or at least the appearance of quality) just because this is a test?
That is the point that I want to get to and I would like to explain; with the new times, new technologies and especially new generations, the internet is no longer a novelty, and e-commerce is no longer a novelty, a free chat application is no longer a novelty. Everything has changed.
A few years ago, with the boom of the new technologies, a potential client was 30 years old, just had started to get internet at home, and the smartphones, it was almost unthinkable to have one if you weren’t an executive, but everything has changed.
My neighbor of 12 years carries a smartphone with a capacity of x100,000 which is what NASA needed 40 years ago for the Apollo 11.
The technological evolution is taking giant steps and consumers are also advancing and moving forward even if they do it at a slower pace.
Yikes! When I was 14 years I didn´t knew or hear about Facebook, Instagram, Amazon or Whatsapp. None of them existed. Who in the world at any range between 18–40 years do not know about these services now? Few, if any.
What is the problem with all this?
Users are accustomed to a minimum of quality, and they expect that of all new products.
What does it mean? That all users expect a new social application to share the activity of that application (whatever it may be) with other social networks. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Whatsapp, etc… it’s that simple.
If our product does not have such a simple feature, people will automatically believe that it is a bad quality product and they will not take it seriously. It is not what they expect.
Hence my suggestion that the MVP has died and Map has born.
MAP: Minimum Awesome Product.
In the present time, when you’re considering the development of a new product (whether physical, web, app, etc…) You don’t only ask yourself “This is the minimum that I need to make it viable?”, at first, it seems the right question, but the approach changes when we pose the following question.
Is this the minimum of incredible product that I can create to be viable?
The change of context is important. Before we only had in mind that the product being launched was functional enough. That the customer / user could run at least 2–3 basic things perfectly, but the client has grown, the client understands 5–6 basic things easily, we have to offer something more, something with which feels familiar and something that will surprise you at the same time.
The best way to see this approach is with an example.
Example of job search app design, both designs made in little more than 1h. Sorry, in Spanish.
What are the differences between the two products? They are really showing the same content. Both have:
Header and Item of employment (which includes: name, date, company, type and remuneration).
But it seems more reliable and attractive in MAP to the user / end customer.
【The ‘product’ value in a startup. | by Carlos Beneyto | The Startup | Medium – https://medium.com/swlh/the-product-value-in-a-startup-aa848983880e】
The ‘product’ value in a startup.
Investing in product is just as critical as investing in technology, you want hundreds of thousands of users to use…
medium.com
The target of this dummy application is a person (male or female) between 18–36 years, who knows the functions of the online job search, it is possible that they have used the Job type of applications and Talent, LinkedIn, JobToday, etc.
Example of current job search apps.
How do we intend to compete in 2017–2018 with a mediocre product when our competitors have apps with several years of advantage and with hundreds of thousands of customers already using them?
Not only do we have to bear in mind that we have to compete in features (features), speed and fluidity, but also in the design of product, because the user / end customer already has pre-designed in his head “how an application for employment should be”.
“The true competition is to offer a better experience on our product.”
And a better experience includes everything: features, speed, fluidity and design. This is essential to compete head to head with other apps.
6–8 years ago when there was no “standard” design or design patterns, everything was to be discovered.
A simple graph of what was or was being sought with an MVP, which requires an MAP.
A quick final example, in a new social network, do we really expect a product that does not have, for example, a search bar, a messaging system and a system of favorites or likes? No. We already have the pattern in our head about how things should look like in a social network.
That is why at the time of launch for a new product, in addition to being quick, viable and economically speaking, affordable, we need to be as “awesome” as possible with the resources that we have. We need to make an effort to provide an experience that the user / client can find to be good enough to give you a chance.
“Not only do we have to search for the minimum viable product, it is necessary to look for the best product experience possible with the resources that we have.”
Obviously, there is one detail that Dave McClure mentioned on Twitter about my article, and its so important…
MAP depends a lot on how “awesome” the available alternatives are in your target industry. If zero alternatives, then MVP = MAP; if lots of options, then MAP > MVP.
Thank you very much Dave for your comment, very correct. What would be an approach with this idea? Simple.
So the next time you think about MVP, think about MAP, (unless you have no competition, then your MVP will automatically be a MAP, as there is no reference): less features, but all properly designed.
Before creating any new feature in your product (MVP) think… do you really need this? If the answer is “Yes”, perfect, do it, but make sure that it works wonderfully (MAP).
“If you’re going to make a new product, think about what your customers expect and try to provide the best experience and product possible.”
And many people will ask… Where can I find those developers or designers to make a MAP? Wrong question! It’s not about developers or designers, it’s about the manager. You have to raise expectations, motivate and know that everything needs your time, you can’t do a MAP in a few weeks or a month. And you have to accept it!
You need to manage and accept that everything needs your time and maturity. Better management is the solution for creating a good MAP.
Disclaimer: Many people will say that the map is the same as the MVE (Minimum Viable Experience), I agree about 90%, but I am more in favor of the experience being merged with a good product, but it does not have to offer a good product design. For example, Craigslist, despite the fact that their service is extremely efficient, the product design very poor, so I prefer to search for products that are as awesome as possible. MAP.