&gt; the definition of MVP definitely gets muddled and everyone has their own take on it.<p>I&#x27;m quite surprised by this, since to me there&#x27;s little to disagree about. A &quot;minimum viable product&quot; seems like a very simple description to me.<p>&gt; An MVP is the smallest possible experiment to test your assumptions.<p>I&#x27;m not sure where this is coming from, unless what you get out of it is a viable product, how is it an MVP?<p>I&#x27;m not saying you shouldn&#x27;t experiment, or that you shouldn&#x27;t build small things and try them out, but I see no reason to keep referring to something as a minimum viable product when it meets none of the three words.<p>&gt; This reminds me of the No true Scotsman fallacy [1].<p>Again, I&#x27;m not really sure why what I&#x27;ve said seems so odd. If it&#x27;s not the smallest viable product then how is it a minimum viable product? If it&#x27;s not a viable product, again, it&#x27;s not an MVP.<p>This is more like reading an article that says &quot;A Scotsman doesn&#x27;t need to be Scottish or even a person&quot;.<p>&gt; This sort of critique isn&#x27;t wrong, but it&#x27;s not useful.<p>I feel it is, since I think the concept of an MVP is pretty important because at the end of it you have a <i>viable product</i>. If people are going to use the term MVP to describe proofs of concepts and mockups and a general process, then what term do you suggest should replace it for actually describing minimum viable products?