Description:
10 Answers
After 25 years in tech, I'd say innovation follows cycles. What seems like an abandoned concept often returns years later when technology or user expectations have evolved. I've seen features from 'failed' 90s software reappear as revolutionary concepts in the 2010s. Perhaps that mind-mapping note feature you loved will become standard in 5 years, implemented by someone who used that abandoned app and never forgot it.
Former product manager at a major tech company here. There's often a disconnect between what's technically interesting and what's commercially viable. Many unique features are abandoned not because they're bad ideas, but because they appeal to a niche userbase or have steep learning curves. Mainstream products optimize for broad appeal and ease of use, sometimes at the expense of novel functionality. That mind-mapping note app might have been brilliant, but if market research shows only 2% of users would use that feature, it's hard to justify the development and maintenance costs.
I think we're looking at survivor bias. For every abandoned project with innovative features that never made it mainstream, there are dozens of abandoned projects with terrible ideas that rightfully died. We only remember and discuss the ones with good ideas that we miss, creating the impression that abandoned projects are generally more innovative.
As someone who's worked in both startup and enterprise environments, I've observed that feature integration has significant hidden costs. Supporting a feature isn't just about coding it - it's about documentation, testing, user support, localization, and ensuring compatibility with future changes. Abandoned projects don't bear these long-term costs, so they can afford to experiment more freely.
UX researcher perspective: Many innovative features fail basic usability testing. I've seen brilliant technical innovations get shelved because users found them confusing or disruptive to their workflow. The features that survive tend to be those that can be intuitively understood and immediately valuable. There's a natural tension between innovation and usability that many mainstream products resolve in favor of the latter.
Software developer for 15+ years here. There's another angle: innovative features often come with technical debt or architectural challenges. That mind-mapping feature might require a completely different data structure than simple notes. Mainstream apps prioritize stability and performance at scale - adding complex features can threaten that. Many abandoned projects are actually proofs of concept that demonstrate an idea without solving all the underlying engineering challenges.
I think there's also a timing aspect worth considering. Some features are simply ahead of their time - either the hardware can't support them efficiently, or users aren't ready for the paradigm shift they represent. I worked on a collaborative editing system in 2010 that was too resource-intensive for browsers then, but would be trivial to implement now. Sometimes innovations need to wait for the ecosystem to catch up.
There's a business model factor too. Successful software needs a sustainable revenue model. Some of the most creative features don't align with popular monetization strategies. I've seen innovative collaboration tools abandoned because they couldn't be easily monetized through subscriptions or didn't collect valuable user data for advertising.
I maintain several open-source projects, and this resonates deeply. Often, I implement features I personally want, without market research or broad usability testing. This leads to highly specific functionality that serves my needs perfectly but might seem strange to others. Large companies can't afford this approach - they need features that make sense to millions of users, not just the developers.
Don't discount the patent angle. Sometimes promising features in abandoned projects exist in a legal gray area. Large companies avoid implementing similar functionality to prevent potential litigation, especially if the original developers didn't properly license their work or if there are existing patents in the space.
Join the conversation and help others by sharing your insights.
Log in to your account or create a new one — it only takes a minute and gives you the ability to post answers, vote, and build your expert profile.