> Apple avoided MVPs, choosing instead to launch highly polished products.
This point is flawed though, and doesn't account for the same advantage that the author ascribes to, say, Peter Thiel: being already established and having already great advantage (large amount of capital and a very recognizable and trusted brand).
The author is comparing startup companies launching an MVP (their first product) to established multi-national companies launching their 100th products 25-30+ years after being created. Quite literally apple-to-oranges (pun not intended) comparison.
btw: if you look at pictures of the Apple 1 (for example at https://www.apple1registry.com/en/71.html) you'll see a computer that's not very polished at all, because it was sold either as a kit (that you would assemble yourself) or as motherboard only.
After reading this line I question the coherence of the reasoning about other books.
This point is flawed though, and doesn't account for the same advantage that the author ascribes to, say, Peter Thiel: being already established and having already great advantage (large amount of capital and a very recognizable and trusted brand).
The author is comparing startup companies launching an MVP (their first product) to established multi-national companies launching their 100th products 25-30+ years after being created. Quite literally apple-to-oranges (pun not intended) comparison.
btw: if you look at pictures of the Apple 1 (for example at https://www.apple1registry.com/en/71.html) you'll see a computer that's not very polished at all, because it was sold either as a kit (that you would assemble yourself) or as motherboard only.
After reading this line I question the coherence of the reasoning about other books.