**I feel like I see founders who either spend 7 months building something far too complicated or throw something out that no one would want to go back to.** I think the **1st** **group** of people from my experience use development as an escape from interacting with people where you're risking rejection/realising that you need to change something. Founders hear the advise a lot but they are either to coy with reaching out to people who could be customers during the build process or they still think a long list of features is what sells products. The **2nd** **group** simply have fallen victim to people on linkedin with little contemporary product experience saying that "you should be embarrassed of your MVP". This is no longer true for the vast majority of startups. It is still kind of true for frontier technologies, where there isn't a solution yet to the problem so customers will use a crappy solution for now and help you build a better one. These days, for the vast majority of startups, good UI is expected and value is expected. If you ship crap, your first users will disappear and the whole "ship & iterate" thing goes out the window. I think people should think more about SLC as a framework (Simple, Loveable an Complete), MVP has been misunderstood. Pick a narrow problem and solve it well for a specific group of users. Spend time narrowing the problem and spend time narrowing the target users and ship something simple, loveable and complete.