> If a MVP is ready in 3 days, then how valuable can that product be?

How long do you think it took to come up with a prototype for Tinder?

A bunch of photos, a blurb of text, geolocation/distance calculation, you like or dislike a profile, and a messaging function.

The slight, simple spin on grindr - showing a stack you HAD to make your way through - instead of grindr's grid - launched them into the stratosphere.

I agree. But the use of the phrase MVP in place of the phrase “initial prototype” is what I am probing. I think that the misuse of “MVP” distorts the understanding of the long and difficult process of developing and marketing a “viable” software product.

The MVP is just the beginning of the journey. A toe-hold in a market space you are about to explore.

The MVP gives you your first data set to work with.

I know very few people willing to commit to the long journey of making something. Even fewer that will bother marketing it.

There is lots of money in this banana stand!

If you stop at the MVP, agreed. The implication is either what you have in an MVP is good enough no one will compete, or that you'll keep moving forward with it once you get any sort of validation.

Flappy bird made more money than most games, and it can be created by anybody in a few hours.

If what you say is true, then the game industry should be dead right now.