Navigating the gap between "launch your app in minutes" promises and production-ready software
TL:DR; No time? Too long?
🎧 Listen to a Podcast about this article on Spotify
We found ourselves in an awkward position during a recent C-level discussion about a potential client project. A company had reached out wanting us to develop their app, and as we worked through the discovery phase, we faced a dilemma that I suspect many development teams encounter but rarely discuss openly: What exactly constitutes an MVP in today's market?
The tension was palpable. We wanted to keep the initial feature set minimal—true to the spirit of "minimum viable product"—but we also needed to present a proposal that wouldn't make us look naive or inexperienced. Because here's the uncomfortable truth: the gap between what an MVP should be and what clients expect has never been wider.
The Simple App Illusion
This situation reminded me of the feeling captured in Jose Aguinaga's 2016 piece about JavaScript development—that overwhelming sense of discovering that "simple" tasks require increasingly complex foundations. The article may resonate with anyone who's experienced similar complexity creep in their field.
The parallel is striking: a client wants "just a simple app," but in 2025, that simple app needs authentication, push notifications, subscription management, offline capability, analytics, crash reporting, security compliance, and a dozen other features that have become table stakes.
The AI Promise vs. Reality
Part of this confusion stems from the current marketing landscape. AI-powered development platforms promise to "launch your app in minutes" with minimal effort. Social media is flooded with demos of someone describing an app idea and having a functional prototype generated instantly. These aren't necessarily false promises—they work, to a point.
But here's what these platforms don't tell you: there's a massive difference between a working prototype and a production-ready application.
When an individual is trying to prove market fit, they can absolutely use these AI tools and knowingly compromise on features, security, scalability, and maintainability. They're testing an idea, not launching a business. But when a company hires a development team, they're not just buying code—they're buying professional guidance, industry knowledge, and the confidence that comes with experience.
The Reality of Modern MVP Scope
A minimum viable product is "a product with enough features to attract early-adopter customers and validate a product idea." That's the textbook definition. But in practice, the MVP conversation quickly becomes a negotiation between competing priorities and market realities.
Software development as a service involves a lot of repeated features. Most apps need authentication, payment processing, push notifications, data synchronization, analytics, security compliance, API integrations, and offline functionality. The challenge isn't that these features are technically difficult—it's that each one opens a complex web of decisions, configurations, and potential pitfalls.
This creates what I call the "trust paradox." Strip an MVP proposal down to truly minimal features, and you risk appearing inexperienced. Include all the features that production apps actually need, and you risk appearing over-engineered compared to "build your app in minutes" alternatives.
The Industry We're Really In
Too often, teams think they're in the business of building software—when in fact, they're in the business of providing guidance.
Our role has evolved beyond development. A significant portion of our work involves helping clients understand why certain features that seem simple are actually complex, what industry standards and expectations really mean, how technical decisions impact long-term success, and why some corners simply can't be cut.
This isn't about creating work for ourselves—it's about ensuring clients understand what they're actually buying and why professional development involves considerations that AI tools currently can't handle.
Our value isn't in the ability to implement features (AI can increasingly handle that), but in our ability to:
- Identify which features are actually necessary
- Understand the implications of technical decisions
- Navigate the complexity of production requirements
- Balance competing priorities and constraints
- Provide the strategic thinking that turns ideas into successful products
Redefining the MVP Conversation
So what actually IS an MVP in 2025? I think we need to reframe the conversation entirely.
Instead of asking "What features should we include?" we should ask:
- "What hypotheses are we trying to validate?"
- "What are the non-negotiable requirements for this market?"
- "What complexity can we defer without compromising the core experience?"
- "What risks are we willing to accept in exchange for speed?"
The MVP isn't about building less—it's about building smart. It's about understanding the difference between features that can be delayed and infrastructure that can't be compromised.
The Path Forward
For development teams navigating this landscape, I suggest we need to:
Be explicit about the hidden complexity: Don't assume clients understand what "simple" features actually entail.
Educate throughout the process: Make the invisible work visible. Explain why certain decisions matter.
Differentiate between prototype and production: Be clear about what AI tools can do versus what professional development provides.
Embrace the guidance role: Position yourself as a strategic partner, not just a code factory.
Reframe the MVP discussion: Focus on learning objectives rather than just feature lists.
The Real Question
The question isn't whether AI will replace developers—it's whether we'll adapt to our evolving role in the ecosystem. The future belongs to development teams that can navigate the complexity while helping clients understand why that complexity matters.
We're not just building apps in 2025—we're building sustainable businesses. And that requires a level of strategic thinking, industry knowledge, and professional judgment that goes far beyond generating code.
The MVP paradox isn't a problem to be solved—it's a reality to be navigated. And navigation, unlike code generation, remains a fundamentally human skill.
What's your experience with MVP scope creep? How do you balance client expectations with technical realities? I'd love to hear how other development teams are handling this challenge.
Top comments (0)