No, I don't think so. JKM's definition of "prototype" is that it's internally-facing and similar to a demo, to answer questions about feasibility. That's fine, and I agree with that.
An MVP is about answering questions about end-user value. "I can make a thing, but is it valuable in the way I think it will be?". Absolutely that needs to be working software being used by customers, but crucially it needs to be the smallest increment you can get away with to confirm that the bigger "version" is worth developing.
This is where I disagree with the post: months, or years, to develop an MVP is just too long. That's an actual product cycle. If you factor in the cost of a couple of engineers or something, that means an MVP is a minimum 6-figure dollar investment.
Where I do agree is that an MVP should probably be morphed into the full product, rather than things be thrown away. But the whole idea of "MVP" as a singular rather than plural concept I think is wrong too; that's a lot longer argument though.
An MVP is about answering questions about end-user value. "I can make a thing, but is it valuable in the way I think it will be?". Absolutely that needs to be working software being used by customers, but crucially it needs to be the smallest increment you can get away with to confirm that the bigger "version" is worth developing.
This is where I disagree with the post: months, or years, to develop an MVP is just too long. That's an actual product cycle. If you factor in the cost of a couple of engineers or something, that means an MVP is a minimum 6-figure dollar investment.
Where I do agree is that an MVP should probably be morphed into the full product, rather than things be thrown away. But the whole idea of "MVP" as a singular rather than plural concept I think is wrong too; that's a lot longer argument though.