I think there's a good point in there, but it's hidden by the linkbait headline.
You should be willing to cut out features that aren't used. They cost money to maintain, they make the system more complex (which costs money) and they confuse customers (which prevents money from coming in).
> You should be willing to cut out features that aren't used.
How about the features that everybody wants but weren't marketed / made accessible well?
In other words, I think such a statement (as well as a fair part of the article) are too simple. How do you know people just don't want the feature, but can find it and understand it?
The extreme example of this is an entire product. If a product has few users, because it has recently launched or was just badly marketed, does that mean you should cut all features, i.e. the entire product?
Comments
I think there's a good point in there, but it's hidden by the linkbait headline.
You should be willing to cut out features that aren't used. They cost money to maintain, they make the system more complex (which costs money) and they confuse customers (which prevents money from coming in).
> You should be willing to cut out features that aren't used.
How about the features that everybody wants but weren't marketed / made accessible well?
In other words, I think such a statement (as well as a fair part of the article) are too simple. How do you know people just don't want the feature, but can find it and understand it?
The extreme example of this is an entire product. If a product has few users, because it has recently launched or was just badly marketed, does that mean you should cut all features, i.e. the entire product?
I actually did touch on that in my other reply. You should investigate unused features and find out why they aren't being used, and react accordingly.