Author asserts "Neutral features don't exist, here's why:" and then doesn't describe why at all.
And the brief post is not even internally consistent. In the beginning he says that features are either assets or debt, then at the conclusion he says that features are strictly debt. Well then the most economically wise decision is to cut all features, isn't it?
Of course it costs time and money to maintain a product. Everyone knows that. The more interesting question is how to value the features you've got in your product vs the time and effort required to maintain them.
And the author doesn't provide any insight at all into that issue.
Author asserts "Neutral features don't exist, here's why:" and then doesn't describe why at all.
And the brief post is not even internally consistent. In the beginning he says that features are either assets or debt, then at the conclusion he says that features are strictly debt. Well then the most economically wise decision is to cut all features, isn't it?
Of course it costs time and money to maintain a product. Everyone knows that. The more interesting question is how to value the features you've got in your product vs the time and effort required to maintain them.
And the author doesn't provide any insight at all into that issue.
Just vague and undeveloped thought.