Hmm, not sure it's an MVP - it lacks V.

If it creates buzz and makes money, it's viable. A few unsatisfied customers should be irrelevant in the greater scheme.

So are we suggesting that we know the missing step?

  1. Build something
  2. ???
  3. Profit!

We're suggesting that it's

  1. Build something
  2. Reduce convenience, increase price, piss people off, but get press
  3. Profit!

???

I think the MVP advice to startups is wrong. It is probably given by investors who would like to see many startups that fail fast and pick winners who survive the first round.

It should be MVP + metrics + quiet A/B testing and iteration for months before launch.

I'd rather see someone try to release something new and get a few things wrong than have no one try to release anything at all until it's perfect.

It's not about waiting until it's perfect, it's about waiting a little bit longer and focusing a bit more on the "viable" part of MVP.