There is a VAST difference between launching something simple and functional and then iterating to a solid, polished product, and launching something that sucks / is simply broken, and hoping people put up with it until you can get it right.
Apple does the former; features for v1 of their products are almost always quite limited, but what is there is polished. Increasingly, Google seems to do the latter.
It's not minimum product, it's minimum viable product. And if it doesn't even work, it's hardly viable.
Have you read the article or used the app? Broken is exactly what it is, and it's a Google product. So yes, I'd assume that's exactly what's being said.
"The native Gmail app isn’t really shit... it’s just buggy as fuck and extremely underwhelming."
I am not saying it is good app. It is weak and disappointing. I am saying that the philosophy MG is promoting where you must get everything right the first time is a distracting and unattainable goal.
Apple does the former; features for v1 of their products are almost always quite limited, but what is there is polished. Increasingly, Google seems to do the latter.
It's not minimum product, it's minimum viable product. And if it doesn't even work, it's hardly viable.