Which one would you prefer?

Some problems/ products can be solved with method 1, method 2 cannot be the best for all the products.

Unfortunately, "MVP" is a much abused philosophy. I frequently see things ripped out midstream because something has caused it to take longer than estimated, and then management will justify it by saying it's not needed for MVP. I've see absolute shit delivered on purpose because management thinks that only MVP should ever be delivered. It's a concept that's marketed as providing the customer with some intermediate product that has functionality while getting feedback to determine if any more effort is even needed. But that's just a bait and switch. It's only real purpose is to spend as little possible on a feature. It's not a customer centric philosophy as advertised. It's company centered and about as anti customer as you can get and still remain in business. There is a time and place for it, but if it's being used as the main way to do things at a company, then they're just screwing the customers.

I see agile cult on this picture. There is probably some young dynamic underpaid team behind that.

The real answer is none from above is correct because everything highly depends on company profile, business case, budget and resources you have.

There are industries where lean philosophy won’t work ever, those are places where you interact with humans in a way that any mistake can kill people or hurt them or live them with nothing.

It’s banking, aerospace, automotive, healthcare, logistics.

There are also places where you need talent - it’s called entertainment:
video, music, art in general - you can’t do it with any approach

So what you end up is small, mostly one person enabled services - that’s why groceries or taxi is growing in the internet.

@M1sf3t yeah, money sucks no money sucks more.

I would prefer if these stayed on recruiters' linkedin profiles

Cannot be answered without the actual problem it's trying to solve.
In "like this" they are all somewhat transportation devices (first two more play things) but such a huge class difference that they likely do not meet requirements. If distance or baggage are a factor than public transportation is a likely VIABLE alternative.

Also you cannot design/build a decent car from a scooter so "not like this" build process is required anyway.

I surely wouldn't buy the second car because it's going to be a totally misdesigned and literally unmaintainable piece of shit.

The second one is more right, but it implies you're rebuilding your entire product at every iteration.

The best example would be a car that is initially minimally viable but missing a lot, then gets more and self sufficient and more features.

@RemyRm Skateboard.

@vane mo money mo problems.

second one. build up important and core stuff of your product, then work on wrappers and new features for it.

@livingmine
Bitches I like em brainless
Guns I like em stainless steel
I want the fuckin Fortune like the Wheel 😂

@vane "investors I like em brainless."

@livingmine Laptops I like em stainless steel

I don't quite understand the image, to me it looks like the skateboard would be somewhat "minimum viable" and the car the finished product.

In general I perefer #2 because of the valuable early feedback. Though "minimum viable" often leads to implementing the low hanging fruit, the least risky features first. Instead, I like to start with a "riskiest assumptions test" - because if the "riskiest assumptions" don't work, you don't need to waste time with the easy things.

@monkeyboy Yeah I strongly agree. There is one company in Iloilo City that is using this "MVP" build only culture.

Make it work. Then fast. Then pretty.

@bradshaw15r what is "pretty"?

@VaderNT make it look nice.

Variations of this meme are presented as a selling point for agile/iterative approach.

To me it looks like a counter-example. You cannot gradually evolve a bicycle into a car, you need to start from scratch.

Is the entire industry crazy?