Tech experts use this image to illustrate the idea of a minimum viable product. Not once did I hear someone point out that it is historically backwards. Why not?
The wisdom of the principle lies in making the product gradually more sophisticated, each iteration technically building on the previous one to deliver more value.
The problem is that the car came sixty years before the motorcycle
More important, neither were the first commercially successful application of the steam engine. It was the train.
Our intuition to start small and grow can be misleading. Technology is tricky because it tends to be big and expensive before it can be made smaller, cheaper, simpler, and better in many ways.
Furthermore, improving long-distance travel is not just a matter of shorter time to the destination
The traveller also cares about convenience and safety. That is why before cars, people travelled between cities by horse and carriage. Not bicycle, scooter or skateboard.
The point is: to disrupt the existing solution, our product needs the cabin from the get-go. Otherwise, it will not address the same market, product category, or problem.
Good advice, bad analogy I suppose.
Ironic, considering stakeholders so often disagree about what the MVP should be.
To build the right thing is one thing.
To talk about it in the right way is another.