Unpopular opinion: Most SaaS founders overbuild. The MVP era is dead.
Welcome to the MLP era.
🧵 Let’s talk about it:
1/
We used to ship MVPs — barebone, ugly, functional.
The goal? Validate fast, fail faster.
But look around Product Hunt today…
Every launch looks like Apple made it.
2/
📦 Clean UI
⚡ Blazing speed
đź“Ł Brand voice on point
đź’¬ Polished onboarding flows
Even beta products are dripping with love.
Why? Because Minimum Viable is no longer enough.
3/
👉 We’re in the age of the Minimum Lovable Product (MLP).
People don’t just want it to work.
They want it to feel good, look good, and tell a story.
MVP gets users.
MLP gets fans.
4/
But here’s the dilemma:
Build fast or build lovable?
Shipping early gets feedback.
Shipping refined builds trust.
What’s the right balance?
5/
So I want to ask the Product Hunt tribe:
đź’¬ Would you rather:
A. Launch raw and iterate in public
B. Polish until it’s memorable (even if it delays you)
C. Something in between?
Drop your vote. Share your take.
What’s worked for you? What backfired?
👇 Let’s discuss 👇
Replies
I'm not sure I'd agree with you on "We’re in the age of the Minimum Lovable Product (MLP)". Yes, the AI tools make it way easier to polish a product, but that would just result in a "Minimum Polished Product". The tools only help you to make it look good on the surface, but they won't help you a lot when it comes to defining user interactions or how features should be designed.
To adapt the famous quote from Steve Jobs: A Minimum Lovable Product is not just that it looks and feels right. It has to work right. ;-)
With this said, I'd try to get it work right and ship fast, at the cost of not looking beautiful.
But when we look at the market, the problem is: There are so many beautiful products and they get the eyeballs. So we are forced to make a product beautiful, too. In the end, we, as makers, are forced to polish the surface of our apps, even when the way it works suffers.
@stefanfis Love this perspective — and you're absolutely right to challenge the hype around MLP.
"Minimum Polished Product" is such a sharp distinction. Too often we confuse surface-level appeal with deeper product value.
Totally agree: looking good ≠working right. That Jobs quote remix nails it.
But yeah... the market’s attention economy forces our hand. If you don’t look the part, you might not even get the chance to prove it works right. It's a tough balance — substance vs. sparkle.
Curious: have you found any workflows or habits that help you keep product integrity while still making it look launch-ready?
@mehedihassan I indeed try to implement features rather early that let my product look beautiful. Way earlier than the MVP theory would suggest. I do this especially to have good marketing assets. For my CSV editor for example, I implemented multiple color schemes. This wasn’t necessary and no user did ask for it. But it allowed me to create some shiny product images for the website or to use in social media.
And to be honest: I like to sometimes have an excuse to stop implementing useful features and make something that’s fun.
@stefanfis Haha, I feel this so much. Sometimes the “non-essential” stuff ends up fueling momentum in ways that raw utility never could.
Those early visual polish moments, like your color schemes, aren’t just for looks. They buy attention, build trust, and like you said, give you great marketing assets. Totally worth it in my book.
Also, having fun while building? That’s underrated. If shiny details keep you energized, that energy shows in the product too.
Hey Mehedi, I agree with you. The MVP mindset often leads to bloated experiments no one cares about. MLP forces discipline. Not more features, but better ones.
I'm currently trying to launch with a small, sharp product that feels good to use from day one. It's of course not perfect, but thoughtful. I think people notice when you care, at least I do when I use products.
That builds trust from the beginning. I'd rather take an extra week to ship something people actually want to use.
@titouan_de_dain Love this mindset, Titouan, “not more features, but better ones” nails it.
A focused, thoughtful product builds way more trust than a rushed stack of half-baked ideas. People can feel when something’s crafted with care, even if it’s small. That first impression matters.
Curious, how are you deciding what’s worth that extra week vs. what gets cut?
@mehedihassan Thanks, that’s exactly it, people notice when it’s crafted with care.
I usually ask: will this change how the product feels on day one? If not, it can probably wait.
Still figuring it out, to be honest. Not always easy haha :)
Kalyxa
I’ve wrestled with this a lot recently. Early builds help you test assumptions fast — but these days, a rough UX can kill interest before you get feedback. For me, it’s about getting to an MLP just enough to spark curiosity and trust, without falling into perfectionism. Somewhere between A and B, depending on the audience. Curious to see how others are navigating this!
Headliner
@parth_ahir Totally agree to your earlier point about UX killing a product while in MVP. Audiences today expect a product that looks and feels polished. Especially on the user side, without the proper education and understanding of product evolution, having a rough UX or design can really kill a product in the water.
In my opinion, these days it is not hard to implement something that works (more or less) and looks really beautiful, using AI or/and existing templates, EVEN if your team has a single dev. The aspect brings it to a MLP faster.
Feedback is the most important, so the actual question I'm always asking is "what is the longest we're allowed to build before getting feedback", and is usually less than a month.
@aeromaniax
Totally agree with you, Constantine.
MLP is more accessible than ever, with AI, templates, and even one-developer teams pulling off polished experiences in record time.
That question, “what’s the longest we’re allowed to build before getting feedback?” — is 🔥.
Most teams wait too long and polish in a vacuum. One month sounds just right to stay grounded in reality.
Curious: do you follow a fixed feedback cadence, or adapt based on the product stage?
Headliner
As someone who has lived through the 'skipping MVP to MLP era,' I wish MVP would come back!
In our case, we honestly wasted a lot of time with certain features, internal debates, and designs that just weren't useful or were immediately changed. I would rather have launched with MVP and asked users for feedback on what they really wanted or would like to see.
While I totally understand the need to montezie, which IMO results in the MLP launch, I still think MVPs are the way to go.
I will say, it would need to be pretty dependent on the tool and audience. If you are launching a SaaS tool to a non-SaaS community, I could see where an MVP would lose merit as they often expect something that looks and feels polished.
@elissa_craig Really appreciate this take — it’s refreshing and honest.
Totally agree that skipping the MVP phase often leads to over-investing in the wrong things. Internal debates and pixel-perfect screens can feel productive… but users usually rewrite the roadmap anyway.
You nailed it: context matters.
Audience expectations, product type, even the channel you’re launching on — all of it influences whether MVP or MLP makes more sense.
That said, I wonder if there’s a hybrid sweet spot:
An MVP that looks like an MLP, but is built in a way that’s throwaway-friendly and rapid to iterate on. Low-code, design systems, AI — maybe we’re getting closer to that middle ground?
Would love to hear how you’d approach it differently now if you had to do it again.
Headliner
@mehedihassan I think a hybrid situation would be great! I do think so many people care about if something looks and feels nice. I do think AI has opened the door for it being a table stakes requirement for the design to be professional/polished. That being said, I really think AI can could be leveraged to do just that make it technically look nice but not be the final design.
Ideally, the MVP looks good and doesn't hinder anyone from coming back for the MLP. BUT the hybrid situation still takes way less time as the team figures out what is truly important and what the audience is really looking for in the tool.
Overall, I think it would be a good compromise that meets in the middle time-wise.
Pokecut
Great thread, Mehedi! I totally agree that the MVP mindset has evolved. While speed and iteration remain important, today’s users expect more than just functionality—they want an experience that delights and connects emotionally. Shipping a Minimum Lovable Product can create stronger early advocates and build lasting trust.
That said, the balance depends on the product and audience. For some niches, launching fast with a raw MVP to gather feedback is crucial. For others, especially consumer-facing apps, polish and storytelling can make or break adoption.
Personally, I lean towards a “something in between” approach: get core value out quickly but invest enough in design and onboarding to make a great first impression. This helps attract users and keeps them engaged long enough to provide meaningful feedback.
Curious to hear what others think!
Pokecut
Great thread! I think it really depends on the product and audience. For early-stage ideas, launching raw helps you learn fast and pivot if needed. But with so many polished products out there, first impressions matter more than ever. Personally, I try to find a middle ground: ship something that works well and feels good, but don’t wait for perfection. Iterating with real users is key, but a little extra polish goes a long way.