I think the discussion is divided between two camps: 1) Those who can't imagine the point of a messaging (or indeed, any) system that does not have all the bel

I think the discussion is divided between two camps: 1) Those who can't imagine the point of a messaging (or indeed, any) system that does not have all the bells and whistles you can imagine or get using another system. 2) Those that realise that most people only use a very small subset of those features, and that everything else is just a potential cause of confusion. So, offering a messaging system that "does a few things, but does them well" will be an attractive proposition for many people. It seems that these two camps can't see each other's points of view. The author of the article seems to acknowledge 2 but keeps coming back to 1. "more words are always good, right" No. Less words to say the same thing are normally much better, the rest is just noise.