More and more, I have lost conviction that “minimum viable products” make sense for product development.
It makes no sense to release a product with the core flow and then dismiss its viability after the aggregate data says people aren’t using it.
Instead, founders should have a fundamental belief about what people want—and they should keep iterating until that value is correctly surfaced.
In practice, this means you should keep a steady flow of new users as you add components to the product, seeing if it solves a core part of the activation and signup loop.
The only part that could possibly be “half-baked” is those individual components. But even those need sufficient quality so there are no confounding factors that distort the signal.
the existence of "experts" is a myth
the fact that certain skills are "deep" is a meme. you can learn anything in one or two weeks. the only thing that exists is depth
@aakashgupta If PMs can't get a first draft out in an hour, or the org can't find them that time, it seems to highlight bigger issues that need to be resolved.
@aakashgupta My thoughts: I get quite concerned when I read any documents clearly drafted with AI. It's unclear whether they've done any of the proper thinking and there's always irrelevant words or information. I'd rather read a scratchy, scrappy bullet point list.
The primary way ChatGPT helps me with writing tasks is I ask it to produce a first draft, and it's so terrible that I go "jesus, I can do better than THAT" and throw it away and write the whole thing from scratch.
@emerywells Looks like you're filtering out candidates who answer the question they're asked. Spotify IS an example of world class execution.
If you asked about inspiring design, unique insights, unique insights, or clever solutions, plenty of PH companies fit.