[loumf]

Features absolutely do sell software if the demand already exists. If you are entering an existing market, where the product category is known -- your set of features (not # of features) is a big part of what will drive sales.

StackOverflow, for example, was sold on features. Look at the early pitches -- it's a reddit+wiki replacement for Experts Exchange. Developers already knew that PHPBB and EE sucked for Q&A. They added voting and editing of old answers, and the demand flowed to them.

[joshklein]

But is it "voting and editing of old answers" what sells the service, or is it "finally, Q&A that doesn't atrophy over time, so it's worth investing your effort in making a great community"?

The difference isn't features vs lack of features; it is features vs BENEFITS. This is the thing "business people" bring to the hackerverse.

[hasenj]

business people bring "more features please so we can make the sale".

It's the designers who deserve the credit here, not the business people.

Plus, not all hackers are feature-centric. There are many hackers who understand design.

[Travis]

Interesting point. But those "features" existed (albeit in a mediocre form). So maybe "implementation of features" or "quality of features" sells a product...?

Speaking just for myself: I don't use SO (or reddit) because of the features they offer. I use them because of the communities involved. I think that's the point here -- there are loads of sites that can compete on features (reddit, meet digg...) but lack something else. It's that "something else" that drives success (partially; I'm not suggesting it's entirely based on some esoteric quality, but that the specific quality can be different for different applications).

[dfrankow]

> the demand flowed to them.

Their combined blog readership was huge. They capitalized on that audience, not just the features.

[andrewtbham]

experts exchanges was ripe to be taken down because they tried to charge money for access.