I guess you have somehow define feature to not include 'ease of use' or any features of the interface in order to make this article apply.
Otherwise, I totally disagree. That the users can use your product smoothly and efficiently IS a feature.
Otherwise, I totally disagree. That the users can use your product smoothly and efficiently IS a feature.
This article strikes me as one big platitude to be honest. Yes, simplifying your interface and creating well defined interactions are very good things. Yes, your product will be better (and more successful) as it gets easier to use. I agree with that, but that doesn't mean stripping away functionality is always the right approach.
Most here would agree that the iPhone is a pretty functional device. Its hardly "simple". It does a ton of things really well. It's not that the device has stripped away features, it's that they have implemented all of those features really well.
I guess I'm saying this: don't blame features for terrible UX. Blame poor engineering.
edit: I also want to address this:
You’ll never win on features against a market leader*
This might be true, but not always. Often you can clearly differentiate your product at some low level, but you still have to build out a commiserate feature set to satisfy customer needs. In the end you have a better product, but adoption is slowed until you achieve feature-level parity (at least on certain core features).
Take something like the iPad. With all of its beauty and design, had it started at $899 or $999 like many speculated, it would have done far poorer. Like potentially flopped. Apple knew price was extremely important and so they were very aggressive on it.
The Kindle and Nook are such good sellers, in part, because of their price. They're the impulse buys while you're standing at the checkstand. With that said price isn't always a factor (and in some cases more expensive is better than cheaper), but you should treat price just as you would UX and design -- very seriously.