From Minimum Viable Product or Minimum Acceptable Product by David Cummings:
In some B2C cases, and many B2B cases, the market demands a minimum acceptable product. A minimum acceptable product is a minimum viable product plus a few (not too many!) niceties people expect in a quality product. The niceties could include items like the password reset option and other generally accepted features. A minimum acceptable product still should not be developed in a vacuum and driven with close customer input. One rule of thumb I like is that the minimum viable product should be built and launched in 90 days with the minimum acceptable product no more than 45 days after that.
A Founder's Notebook 
We also sometimes speak of “minimum loveable product”. If your goal is to find out whether users will get excited about a feature, sometimes you can’t test it unless you develop it to the point where it can really be exciting. That can involve being very perfectionist about the interface, language, etc.
This artificial distinction leads to the implication that viability and acceptability are distinct — that it’s somehow possible to have a product that is viable, yet not acceptable?
In his example, I see the first iteration as a *testable* product (though not at all viable). You need the remaining table stakes features to be remotely viable, but you can have a product that’s not yet viable but whose basic value can be tested with real users (before any of them needs to reset a password for the first time, in this example).
I agree with just.a.guy. To me, viable *is* what is acceptable by a potential customer. If a customer will not use it, it is not acceptable. And therefore not viable as a product that can be used by a customer.
Pingback: Carnival of Quality Management Articles and Blogs – February 2016 | The world is too small? or Is it?
Pingback: Why product managers shouldn’t overrate simplicity | A Founder's Notebook