i opine that some features are innovation and others not. i.e., x.25 support on modern kit seems a not innovative and a waste of resources i would rather see applied elsewhere.
Probably a fairer characterization.
but every feature has its cost in complexity and resources to build and maintain. resources are finite and complexity has super-linear cost. so i would much prefer that the vendors concentrate on the features *i* want <g>. and i am quite skeptical of features which non-paying non-customers want.
Well, I'm even skeptical of features that paying customers want. But that doesn't pay the bills. ;-) While complexity has super-linear cost, not all features introduce significant complexity. It's very much a function of the architecture. In a highly partitioned, loosely coupled system, adding a feature that interacts with only a single other component in a trivial way may be quite simple. In a monolithic system, adding a feature that permeates the system may be so complex as to be unimplementable. The features to avoid are those where the complexity cost outweighs the revenue. If only we could evaluate this properly! ;-) Tony