I feel that, as founders of software companies, we get stuck in the mentality of having to continually add new features.

In our research for Kill the HiPPO, no-one we interviewed ever said, "we decided to add less features" or "we decided to slow down the rate we add features" or even "we decided to stop adding new features altogether because our product is complete".

Why do few software products ever move to a "100% done" phase? Is this because our modern software development practices optimise for change and for "product velocity" (to use product management speak)?

What would happen if you stopped adding features to your product?

You'd free up resources to make your product more stable, faster, and more reliable.

You'd finally be able to get your help docs completely up to date and in sync with your product.

You'd be able to spend more time helping new and existing customers explore the features that exist.

You'd be able to go back and polish all those "rough edges" in the ton of features you spent the last few years churning out.

You'd be able to make the small details consistent in the UX and microcopy.

You'd be able to work less hours and spend more time on other things in your life.

You'd be able to get into that other project you've been meaning to do for years, such as writing a book, getting into public speaking, or coaching other founders.

Or maybe it would affect your product badly.

Your product wouldn't get the new "must have" features your competitors are introducing.

Potential customers would notice your "what's new" page is not getting updates and will wonder if your product has been abandoned.

Your product's UX would start to feel dated.

New competitors would be able to pitch themselves against your product. You, moribund. Them, vibrant and active.

I don't know exactly what would happen. Probably several of the possibilities I listed?

Is it worth trying with your product?