Why do abandoned digital projects often have more unique features than mainstream alternatives?

Question

Description:

I’ve noticed that many abandoned or less popular software projects, particularly in open-source communities, often have innovative features that never make it into mainstream applications. For example, I recently found an abandoned note-taking app with mind-mapping capabilities I’ve never seen matched elsewhere. Why don’t successful applications adopt these unique features? Is there a ‘natural selection’ process in software development that actually filters out some of the most creative ideas?

11 Answers

Sort by:

Emma Statistics 15 Feb 2024

Copy answer link Report answer
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.
43
UXtheorist 11 Feb 2024

Copy answer link Report answer
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.
41
- G. L.: Innovation often sacrificed for usability in mainstream projects
  Report
  UXtheorist: Exactly! Mainstream products have to balance innovation with broad user acceptance, so they often prioritize usability to avoid alienating users. That means some cutting-edge ideas don’t make the cut unless they clearly enhance the experience without adding confusion.
  Report
TechCycleWatcher 16 Feb 2024

Copy answer link Report answer
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.
40
Nikolai Petrov 13 Feb 2024

Copy answer link Report answer
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.
36
Tara Lindsey 10 Feb 2024

Copy answer link Report answer
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.
36
FutureThinker88 12 Feb 2024

Copy answer link Report answer
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.
34
CodeSage42 10 Feb 2024

Copy answer link Report answer
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.
33
BusinessModelHacker 14 Feb 2024

Copy answer link Report answer
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.
29
Damien Richards 11 Feb 2024

Copy answer link Report answer
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.
24
Victoria Montgomery 2 Mar 2024

Copy answer link Report answer
Ever wonder if some of those abandoned projects with quirky features are actually a bit like wildflowers growing in the cracks? They bloom in unexpected places where nobody s tending the garden, free to take risks without worrying about mowing schedules or customer complaints.
Could it be that mainsream apps prune away these oddities not just because they are impractical but because they challenge the very definition of what “software” should do?
Maybe it’s less about survival of the fittest and more about conformity—those unique features might unsettle users’ expectations or even disrupt established workflows so deeply that companies decide to play it safe. What if innovation gets stuck in a straitjacket made of comfort zones and habits?
13

Want to answer?

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.

Log in or Register ›

Accepted Answer · 2024-02-09T19:05:37+00:00

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.