MVP stands for Minimum Viable Product. Three words that sound straightforward until you actually try to apply them to your brilliant, complex, nuanced product idea.

The term was popularized by Eric Ries in his book The Lean Startup, though the concept's been kicking around since Frank Robinson coined it in 2001. Ries defined it as the smallest version of a product that helps teams validate real customer needs without overbuilding.

Notice what's not in that definition: perfection, every feature you've ever dreamed of, blockchain integration (unless tokens really are core to your idea), and anything unnecessary to validate the core assumption about your idea.

MVP in software development is for founders and leaders - the ones lying awake at night wondering if their idea's actually any good, the ones who've been "almost ready to start" for 6 months or more, the ones who know they need to validate but aren't quite sure how.

MVP development is for you if you check any of these boxes:

• You struggle most with deciding what to build first - not the actual building

• You’re a non-technical leader looking for a technical partner

• There’s a fear of failure, but it's really fear of wasting time & money on the wrong thing

• You’re overwhelmed with advice and paralysed by overthinking

• You want validation before you build, but you’re not sure what "minimum" really means

• There's a need to prove yourself, not just ship software

Whether this is your first MVP, or your 27^th, this guide to MVP in software development is aimed to provide a little more clarity so that you can not only ship a well-built MVP, but get real validation, avoid costly mistakes, and iterate towards your own success.  

It’s not what you think.

Most founders believe they're building an MVP to "launch quickly" or "save money." Those are nice side effects, but they're not the point.

You're building an MVP to find out if you're wrong.

Specifically, you're trying to discover:

• Whether the problem you're solving is actually painful enough that people will change their behavior

• Whether your solution actually solves it

• Whether people will pay what you need to charge

• What features actually matter versus what you thought would matter

• Whether you're targeting the right users

The MVP is cheaper and faster than building the full product, yes. But its real value is that it might save you from spending a year building something nobody wants.

But is an MVP always the answer? Here are times when you might not need an MVP:

• Your product requires significant infrastructure or regulatory approval before it can function at all

• You're in an established market copying a proven model (though you still need to validate differentiation)

• The risk of a half-built product is worse than the risk of building fully first (medical devices, for example)

• You've already validated the core hypothesis through other means (extensive user research, a waitlist of paying customers, etc.)

But for most founders with most ideas? Yes. Build an MVP. Ship it. Learn from it. Iterate or pivot based on what you discover.

An MVP in software development is not a stripped-down version of your grand vision. It's not "the app, but worse." It's not a prototype you'll bin later.

An MVP is the smallest version of your product that can actually test whether your core assumption is correct. That core assumption—the one you probably haven't written down yet but definitely believe—is usually something like:  

"People will pay for a solution to [specific problem] that works by [your unique approach]."

Your MVP exists to prove or disprove that assumption as quickly and cheaply as possible. Nothing more, nothing less.

Many software development agencies will agree to build your MVP exactly the way you want it – even if this includes unnecessary features you don’t need yet.  

What you really need is an MVP agency that will help you identify the features you really need for the maximum feedback about your core assumption, before you pay for extra features.

Here’s an example of an MVP in software development:

If you're building a plant identification app, your MVP is not the plant identification app plus social features, plus a marketplace, plus AR visualisation. It's -  

• Identifying the Problem: Do people care enough about identifying plants to use (and someday pay for) this?  

• Validating Your Solution: Can we correctly identify plants from photos in a way that's useful enough that people keep coming back?

Let’s get into more detail about MVPs in different areas of development:

What is MVP in Product Development?

An MVP in product development focuses on validating your product hypothesis before you commit to full-scale development. It's about answering questions like:

• Do people actually have the problem you think they have?

• Is your solution something they'd use?

• Will they pay for it? (This one's crucial—people say they'd pay for lots of things)

• What features do they genuinely need versus what you think looks impressive?

A product development MVP strips away everything that isn't essential to testing your core value proposition.  

What is MVP in App Development?

An MVP in app development means building the absolute minimum functionality needed to get your app into users' hands and collect real feedback.  

Not theoretical feedback from your mates at the pub. Real feedback from people who don't care about hurting your feelings.

Here's what this looks like in practice:

Your MVP might not have:

• Push notifications (you can email them)

• In-app purchases (you can invoice them)

• Fancy animations (they don't prove your hypothesis)

• Multiple user types (start with one)

• Dark mode (as nice as it is)

Your MVP must have:

• Your core feature working reliably

• A way to create an account

• Enough polish that people don't think it's broken

• A way to collect feedback

• Analytics to see what people actually do (not what they say they'll do)

The difference between an app MVP and a full app is ruthless prioritisation. Every single feature should directly support testing your core assumption or make the app usable enough that people will actually use it. Everything else is noise.

What is MVP in Agile Development?

For non-technical leaders, an MVP in agile development is about building in iterative development cycles.  

You're not building everything up front and hoping it works. You're building in small increments, testing constantly, and adjusting based on what you learn.

An agile MVP approach means:

• Shipping something functional quickly (weeks, not months)

• Getting it in front of real users immediately

• Using their feedback to inform the next ‘sprint’

• Being prepared to pivot if your assumptions were wrong

• Measuring actual behaviour, not just collecting opinions

In agile development, MVPs are particularly powerful because they prevent you from building too much before validating. Each sprint should add value that you've already validated users want, rather than features you think they might want someday.

What is MVP in Web Development?

An MVP in web development often has the advantage of faster deployment and easier updates than native applications. This means you can test and iterate even more quickly.

A web development MVP might:

• Use off-the-shelf tools for non-core features (authentication, payments, email)

• Prioritise responsive design for mobile without building separate native apps

• Launch with manual processes for features you'll automate later

• Use simple, proven tech stacks rather than experimental frameworks

• Focus on browser compatibility for your target users, not every browser ever made

Web MVPs also have the advantage of not requiring app store approval, which means you can ship updates the moment they're ready.  

This is particularly valuable when you're in the rapid learning phase.

What is MVP in Mobile Development?

MVPs in mobile development come with their own considerations. You're building for a more constrained environment, which can actually help with the "minimum" part of MVP.

For mobile development, your MVP decisions include:

• iOS only, Android only, or both? (Hint: start with one)

• Native development or cross-platform frameworks?

• Which OS versions to support?

• How much offline functionality do you absolutely need?

• What permissions you're asking for (and whether you actually need them yet)

A mobile MVP is particularly effective at testing location-based features, push notification strategies, or experiences that benefit from being constantly accessible. But don't let the mobile-specific features distract you from your core hypothesis.

When a developer or development agency talks about building your MVP in software development, they should be talking about identifying the absolute minimum feature set needed to test your business hypothesis.  

Not the minimum to launch a "real" product. Not the minimum to look professional.  

The minimum to learn whether you're onto something.

If a developer suggests adding features because "users expect it" or "it'll look better," they’re not bad developers, but they aren’t thinking like founders. Developers often want to build things properly. Founders need to learn fast and stay solvent.

Good developers understand this distinction. Great developers will actively push back on feature bloat and ask uncomfortable questions like:

• How will we measure if this feature proves the hypothesis?

• Can we test this without building it?

• What's the manual workaround we can use before automating?

• What happens if we're wrong about this assumption?

Now your MVP needs to be minimum, yes. But it also needs to be viable. Viable means:

• It actually solves the core problem you identified

• It works reliably (most of the time, at least)

• The user experience isn't so painful that people give up

• It looks professional enough that people trust it with their time/data/money

• There's enough functionality that using it is easier than not using it

This is the tightrope walk. You can't gold-plate everything. But you also can't ship something that feels like homework to use.  

Your MVP needs to be good enough that if people don't use it, it's because they don't want the solution—not because the solution was too annoying.

This is why at Octogle, we believe that design and branding matter, even in an MVP. Not fancy design. Not award-winning branding (yet). But enough polish that your app doesn't look like you threw it together over a weekend (even if you did).  

Let's clear up some confusion:

An MVP is not a prototype. A prototype is a simulation or mockup used internally to test concepts. An MVP is the actual product you put in real users' hands.

An MVP is not version 1.0. Version 1.0 is the first release of your full product. An MVP is the first release of your learning tool.

An MVP is not an excuse for shoddy work. Minimum doesn't mean broken. Viable means it actually works for its intended purpose.

An MVP is not feature-complete. That's the whole point. It's intentionally incomplete so you can learn what to build next.

An MVP is not permanent. You'll iterate on it, rebuild parts of it, possibly throw whole sections away. That's fine. That's the process.

Here’s a list of common issues that come up when it comes to building MVPs in software development.

Mistake 1: Building too much.

You decide your fitness app MVP needs workout tracking, nutrition logging, social features, gamification, Apple Watch integration, and an AI coach.  

No it doesn't. Pick one hypothesis and test it.

Solution: Write down your single core hypothesis. Everything that doesn't test that hypothesis gets cut. Brutal prioritisation is your friend.

Mistake 2: Building too little.

Your MVP is so bare-bones that it's not actually useful. People can't fairly evaluate it because using it is more painful than their current solution.

Solution: Test your MVP yourself. Properly use it for a week. If you find yourself making excuses for it, users will too.

Mistake 3: Waiting for it to be perfect.

You've been "almost done" with your MVP for 3 months. Just one more feature. Just a bit more polish. Meanwhile, your competition has launched, learned, and iterated.

Solution: Set a launch date. A real one. Tell people. Then ship even if you're not 100% happy with it. You'll never be 100% happy with it.

Mistake 4: Ignoring the validation part.

You build the MVP, launch it, and then... assume success means lots of sign-ups. But are they using it? Paying for it? Recommending it? Coming back?

Solution: Define success metrics before you launch. What behaviour would prove your hypothesis? Track that religiously.

Mistake 5: Falling in love with the MVP.

Your MVP starts generating some revenue. You keep patching it, adding bits here and there. Two years later, you're maintaining a Frankenstein product instead of building the real thing.

Solution: Know when to graduate. Once your hypothesis is validated, you should either shut down (if invalidated) or build properly. The MVP is a learning tool, not a retirement plan.

If your MVP validates your hypothesis:

Now you've got decisions to make.  

• Do you double down on this exact solution?  

• Do you adjust based on what you learned?  

• Do you keep your current users and build version 2.0,  

• Or rebuild from scratch with a better technical foundation?

This is a good problem to have. You've got data, you've got some users or customers, and you've proven there's demand. Now you can invest with confidence.

If your MVP invalidates your hypothesis:

This is not a failure, but learning. You just saved yourself potentially years and hundreds of thousands of pounds building the wrong thing. Now you've got different decisions:  

• Was the problem wrong?  

• Was the solution wrong?  

• Was the target market wrong?  

Sometimes the answer is in the data. Sometimes it's in the qualitative feedback. Sometimes you need to go back to the drawing board entirely.

The beauty of the MVP approach is that you find this out in 3 months instead of 3 years.

Here's what good MVP software development partnerships look like:

They ask about your business hypothesis. Not just what features you want, but why you want them and what you're trying to learn. If they don't ask, tell them anyway.

They push back on your feature list. Not because they're being difficult, but because they understand that scope creep kills MVPs. A developer who builds everything you ask for without questioning it might not be thinking about your actual goals.

They talk about validation, not just delivery. The conversation shouldn't just be about timelines and features. It should be about how you'll measure success and what you'll do with the data.

They're honest about trade-offs. Building fast means making technical compromises. Good teams are upfront about what you're trading speed for and what you'll need to rebuild later.

They care about outcomes, not just code. The best development partners understand that the MVP is trying to answer a question. They'll suggest alternative approaches, manual workarounds, and creative solutions that get you to answers faster.

You don't need to have everything figured out before you start. You just need to know:

1. What problem you're solving

2. Who has that problem

3. What your proposed solution is

4. How you'll know if it works

Everything else—the tech stack, the feature list, the marketing strategy, the long-term roadmap—can be figured out as you go and we can help with that. That's what makes the MVP approach so powerful. You're not betting everything on one big launch. You're taking small, calculated steps and adjusting based on what you learn.

Your MVP isn't about building a business. It's about testing whether you should build this business. That's a far less risky proposition.

So if you've been sitting on an idea, overthinking the execution, waiting for the perfect moment—stop. Define your hypothesis. Strip it down to the absolute minimum. Build that. Ship it. Learn from it.

The real risk isn't shipping an imperfect MVP. It's never shipping at all.

When you’re ready to get started, you can connect with us for a 30-minute strategy call for free.