[butlike]

Unshipped code can't break. How is it a liability and not an asset? The money maker is making money and the changes that potentially would interfere with that are held up at the gate. Seems like a good thing from a business perspective.

[pards]

It's an investment that is not generating returns. It's inventory sitting on the shelf requiring ongoing maintenance costs but generating no income.

[ambicapter]

You spent money making it, and now it's not making any money. It's pure liability (in the accounting sense, not the legal liability sense).

[butlike]

It's potentially making money if I don't have to lie to the board/shareholders about having new features and ideas "in the works." New features show growth, life, progress of the business. If those features are being worked on then the business isn't stagnating. The actuality becomes all upside: risk to the money-maker is averted, and shareholder's fears are allayed with "Loud announcement, quiet rollout"-style features.

[impjohn]

Code gets stale really fast. Re-gathering context and re-aligning on old code is sometimes more painful than starting from scratch.

[dawnerd]

Also more chance for scope creep.