Dead Features Talk

Most products hide a graveyard of unused features. AI can find them, quantify them, and tell you what to cut.

Introduction, listening to the ghosts in your product

Software teams love to ship features. A roadmap filled with new capabilities looks like progress, and managers use feature counts as proof of productivity. Yet data paints a spooky picture. Studies over the past decade show that around 64% to 80% of features in delivered software are rarely or never used. In one 2025 case study, a fast growing SaaS company discovered that 50% of its features had almost zero activity and another 30% were used by fewer than 5% of customers. Only 5% of the product drove most usage. The rest were quietly gathering dust, dead features buried in plain sight.

So, is your product hiding a similar graveyard? If you suspect it is, you are not alone.

This article is for expert UX/UI designers and business owners who suspect their products may be haunted by unused functionality. We will explore why dead features happen, how artificial intelligence (AI) is changing product analytics, and how to exorcise those ghosts. Expect storytelling, statistics, diagrams, and a few lighthearted questions along the way. Let’s start digging.

Storytime: When features die on the vine

Imagine your team spends 18 months building new features. Strategy meetings hum, design mock ups dazzle stakeholders, and your engineers churn out code like sorcerers. The launch party feels like victory. Months later, you finally check the analytics. It turns out 80% of the features are rarely or never used. Only a handful of core functions drive real engagement. Churn has quietly increased 12%. In hindsight, the product roadmap looks less like a vision and more like a tombstone list.

So what went wrong? About 80% of features built into software often end up unused, a finding that echoes earlier research suggesting 64% of features see little or no use. Companies build features because a salesperson asked for them, a competitor launched something similar, or because shipping new stuff feels rewarding. They seldom revisit whether customers actually need these extras. In the words of design leader Jason Fried, “Features don’t sell your product. What your product does sells your product… You don’t need to outdo the competition. It’s expensive and defensive. Underdo your competition. We need more simplicity and clarity.” That advice is as relevant today as it was a decade ago.

Quick gut check, when was the last time you measured usage at the feature level rather than at the release level?

Why feature creep happens

Feature creep, adding unnecessary “me too” functionality, has become common in both software and physical products. It leads to “feature warring with competitors” and inserts functionality where it does not belong. The result is increased prices for customers and diminishing returns for businesses.

Start ups trying to look competitive often add extra tabs and toggles that confuse users rather than delight them. In established companies, each department requests its own pet feature, creating Frankenstein interfaces.

From a human perspective, it makes sense. People equate more options with more value, and teams rarely have incentives to kill unused work. Every engineer wants to showcase the latest AI recommendation engine or blockchain widget. Yet those features often become maintenance liabilities, each button needs documentation, testing, and customer support. Dead features are not just clutter, they eat resources.

So, what is the fix? Should you freeze the roadmap and focus only on existing functionality? Should you scrap half of your product tomorrow? How can you be certain which features are zombies and which are just sleeping? This is where AI comes in. But first, a peek at the costs.

The cost of building the wrong features

Waste is not just about design aesthetics. It is about cold, hard budgets. In some engineering programs, teams spend large chunks of time in meetings resolving misunderstandings that early alignment could have avoided. Analyses in complex systems show that fixing a requirements defect during design is many times more expensive than catching it early, and dramatically more expensive when found in production. Coupled with data that a significant share of development effort is often spent on avoidable rework, it becomes clear that chasing the wrong features is a massive drain.

As Peter Drucker famously said, “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” Dead features represent exactly that, efficient execution of unnecessary work. They inflate maintenance, slow down interfaces, and distract teams from solving real problems.

Be honest, which line item in your budget silently grows every quarter because of features no one needs?

How AI uncovers dead features

In recent years, the AI boom has extended beyond chatbots into product analytics. Tools like Pendo, Amplitude, FullStory, and Mixpanel use AI and machine learning to track feature adoption, identify invisible friction, and surface patterns in customer behavior. These platforms ingest billions of clicks and swipes, then automatically flag features with declining usage, segmentation insights, and adoption triggers. For example, some products surface “trend cards” that highlight when a once popular report is no longer used and suggest targeted in app guides or the removal of the feature.

This surge in intelligent analytics is part of a broader wave. Many organizations now deploy AI in at least one function, and most consumers use at least one AI powered service in a typical month. As adoption grows, so does data. With that volume, machine learning models can better distinguish between healthy, rarely used, and truly dead features.

So, what data would convince you that a feature should be retired, and what data would save it?

Mermaid diagram, AI powered feature auditing

Below is a simplified flowchart showing how AI audits features. It starts with capturing behavioral data, then moves through model driven analysis, and ends with a decision to keep, improve, or retire features.

flowchart TD
  A["Raw usage data (clicks, swipes, logins)"] --> B["Preprocessing and clean data"]
  B --> C["AI and ML model learns usage patterns"]
  C --> D["Identify low usage and high usage features"]
  D --> E{"ROI evaluation"}
  E --> |"Keep and enhance"| F["Invest in top performers"]
  E --> |"Improve adoption"| G["Targeted guides and onboarding"]
  E --> |"Retire"| H["Deprecate or remove features"]
  H --> I["Reallocate resources"]
  G --> I
  F --> I
  I --> J["Iterate and monitor changes"]
    

This process turns gut feeling into evidence based strategy. AI does not decide alone, it surfaces insights that product teams use to have honest conversations about what stays and what goes.

If this diagram mapped to your product today, where would most arrows point?

Comparing AI product analytics tools

Not all analytics platforms are equal. Here is a high level comparison of popular tools that support AI driven feature auditing. Pricing and exact capabilities evolve quickly, but the table captures general strengths as of late 2025.

Note, always check vendors’ latest documentation for up to date details. Regulatory compliance and data governance should be considered when using any AI analytics platform.

So, which of these fits your stack today without heavy lift from engineering?

Lessons from design leaders

Modern product teams are not the first to wrestle with feature bloat. Dieter Rams, the legendary Braun designer, coined the mantra “Less, but better,” urging makers to focus on essential qualities. Jason Fried champions “underdoing” the competition to produce simpler, more focused products. These philosophies echo across disciplines. In the design community, feature minimalism is not about laziness, it is about empathy.

Feature creep often arises when designers fail to ask the right questions. Checklists that ask “Is your project suffering feature creep?” warn that adding “me too” features can create a declining return on value. Many cautionary tales share a theme, failing to speak with users. One simple fix from the earlier case study was to talk to customers weekly and observe how they actually use the product. Doing so revealed that an analytics dashboard consuming 10% of engineering time was only used by 3% of customers, which led the team to discontinue it.

Be practical, what is the smallest experiment you could run this week to validate a feature’s value?

Forward thinking advice for practitioners

1. Start small and iterate
2. Instead of building fully fledged features, release minimum viable versions to a subset of users. Measure whether they solve problems before expanding. In the case study, launching a simple recommendation system in three weeks saved five months of wasted engineering time when only 12% of users engaged. By contrast, massive, unvalidated projects risk becoming expensive skeletons.
3. Quick test, can you define the target user, the core job, and the success metric in three lines?
4. Measure what matters
5. Do not stop at counting feature releases. Track adoption, engagement, and retention. Ask, how many customers actually use this? Does it reduce churn or make the experience better? If the answer is unclear, resist scaling. Use AI analytics to surface adoption patterns and inform decisions.
6. Simple rule, if you cannot name the primary metric, do not ship beyond beta.
7. Talk to customers regularly
8. Modern tools cannot replace human empathy. Designers and engineers should join customer calls and observe real usage. Doing so not only uncovers pain points but also builds trust. For instance, early teams at developer first companies often onboarded customers manually to understand their needs before automating.
9. Quick prompt, who is the next customer you will observe this week, and what behavior will you watch for?
10. Be ruthless about cutting
11. Killing features you spent months building can be painful. But leaving them in place can be worse. When analytics show a feature is dead, either retire it or radically rethink it. Remember, only a handful of features drive the majority of user value. Freeing resources from dead features allows you to double down on what works.
12. Try this, if you had to remove three features today, which would go first and why?
13. Build a culture of learning
14. The most successful teams treat launch as the beginning of a feature’s life, not the end. They set success metrics, run experiments, and adapt based on feedback. AI can accelerate learning loops, but culture must encourage curiosity. Many companies still abandon a large share of AI initiatives, which shows that technology alone is not enough. Readiness and a learning mindset are critical.
15. One last nudge, what experiment will you commit to before the next planning meeting?

Image idea and alt text

Imagine a digital illustration of a product “graveyard.” Tombstones represent unused features, tiny buttons and complex filters, set against a UI landscape with overgrown vines creeping across the interface. This metaphorical scene captures the hidden cost of feature bloat and can accompany presentations or articles.

Alt text: “A digital illustration showing a graveyard of software features, tombstones labeled with features sit within a user interface landscape, symbolizing unused functionality.”

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

Q1. How does AI differentiate between a genuinely dead feature and one used by a niche but important segment?

AI models analyze not just overall usage but also segment specific patterns. A feature may appear low usage globally yet be critical for a key customer cohort. Advanced tools allow you to set thresholds, weigh revenue impact, and evaluate qualitative feedback before making decisions. Always combine AI insights with human judgment.

Q2. What if removing a feature upsets legacy users?

Deprecation should be handled transparently. Communicate why the feature is being retired, offer alternatives, and provide migration guides. If a small but vocal group depends on a feature, consider making it available via an add on rather than maintaining it in the core product.

Q3. Can AI tell us which new features to build?

AI excels at identifying patterns in existing data, such as unmet needs and friction points. It can suggest where users drop off or what similar customers request. However, ideation still relies on human creativity, user interviews, and domain expertise. Use AI as a compass, not a crystal ball.

Q4. How do privacy and ethics factor into AI powered analytics?

Collecting behavioral data raises legitimate concerns. Ensure your analytics platform complies with regulations like GDPR or CCPA, minimize data collection to what is necessary, and anonymize sensitive information. Transparency with users builds trust. Many people remain cautious about companies using AI tools to collect data, so handle data responsibly.

Q5. Is AI adoption itself sustainable?

AI models consume significant energy and water. Data centers consume large amounts of electricity, and AI driven water consumption continues to rise. Balance the benefits of AI with environmental considerations and optimize for efficiency.

Conclusion, let the dead speak and then let them go

Feature graveyards are not inevitable. They are a symptom of misaligned incentives and a lack of feedback. AI and modern analytics provide the shovels and flashlights needed to uncover the dead, quantify their cost, and release the resources trapped within. But technology is only part of the story. Adopting a culture of continuous learning, speaking directly with customers, and embracing the mantra “less, but better” can guide teams toward products that are alive with purpose.

The next time someone suggests adding another checkbox or AI powered widget, ask yourself, will this solve a real problem? Do we have evidence it will be used? If the answer is unclear, let the feature rest in peace, before it haunts your backlog.

‍