[throw310822]

Aside the fact that more features means more time spent supporting them- is it actually true that too many features degrade the product because it becomes too complicated? I disagree.

A good interface organisation can hide the most complex features from most users. The lack of a feature might force users to use a different product; but if the software is confusing, or bloated, this is a problem with its how it's organised and the quality of its code, not with the number of features per se.

[amatecha]

In my experience/opinion, most software companies don't spend the time/effort to properly integrate new features in a cohesive way that makes them "intuitively" discoverable while avoiding complicating what was already there. The product becomes degraded because no one spends the amount of effort needed to cleanly integrate a new feature which changes the model of how a person interacts with the software. Instead it's usually just tacked on, shoved in somewhere that it kinda fits. New button, menu item, toolbar tool, whatever. More stuff.

[bsdpufferfish]

The cost of a change is proportional to how many things it touches.

[x86x87]

in case of bloat most features are not used. you spend almost all your time and attention maintaining shit nobody cares about

[throw310822]

I usually think of bloated software as sw with features that are ill-conceived, either because they've been thrown in by some clueless pm, or because they're not really meant to help the user but only to generate a profit for the company, or to justify the existence of a team. If that's the case, it's not much the number of features per se, it's how they've been designed and implemented.