Okay, I&#x27;m reading the TechCrunch article you linked to, and I come across this:<p><i>In this case, the video was the minimum viable product. The MVP validated Drew’s leap-of-faith assumption that customers wanted the product he was developing not because they said so in a focus group or because of a hopeful analogy to another business, but because they actually signed up.</i><p>I think this is a very interesting quote.  For one thing, it urges us to expand our notion of what a <i>product</i> is.  It isn&#x27;t necessarily an actual working piece of software; it can be a mock-up or faked demo -- but in any case it&#x27;s still something that can be shown to potential customers.<p>But the question that some of us are raising is, <i>when</i> could the video be <i>called</i> an MVP?  The answer we would suggest is, it becomes an MVP only <i>after</i> it receives an enthusiastic response from the market.  Note that the Ries quote is completely consistent with this interpretation: by the time Ries wrote it, the video had received such a response.  Our argument is that <i>while Drew Houston was making the video, it wasn&#x27;t an MVP yet</i>: it was only an experiment, an <i>attempt</i> at making an MVP, but not yet a <i>validated</i> MVP.<p>So I disagree that &quot;MVP&quot; is &quot;a term of art and can&#x27;t really be broken down word by word&quot;.  Rather, I think that people haven&#x27;t understood exactly what Ries and Blank mean by it.