[petralithic]

> Every delivered feature is a liability not an asset.

> If you don’t believe me, consider two products that make customers equally happy and one has half as many moving parts. Which one is more profitable to maintain?

Wrong analogy, use the word feature in both emphasized terms. Consider two products and one has half as many features, which is more profitable to maintain? Well, it depends whether people are paying for the other half of the feature set or not, as oftentimes people will pay for more features than fewer.

[hinkley]

It’s a perfectly fine analogy if you can get over your own ego enough to realize your customers don’t want to hear about how very clever you are, they just want to get shit done and move on to four other tasks.

They don’t care about us. They don’t. They just want to do what their boss asked them to do or kill the bad guy to get the treasure, and we are often enough as much in the way as we are facilitating that.

[petralithic]

This sounds like a non sequitur to me, when did I ever say I disagreed with the fact that "they just want to get shit done?" I am not sure what your comment has to do with the part about misconstruing features for moving parts, for those are two independent things, and still more generally, like I said, people do pay for software that has more features than fewer.