I think the level 1 explanation isn't entirely trivial, actually. There are several level 1 hypotheses one might have at that point. "Why is feature X missing?

I think the level 1 explanation isn't entirely trivial, actually. There are several level 1 hypotheses one might have at that point. "Why is feature X missing?" 1. They decided to do something else, and by extension, not this (e.g. because of opportunity costs) 2. They decided not to do anything (e.g. because the product is abandoned) 3. They evaluated the possibility of adding feature X, and decided it doesn't make sense now, even if the resources to implement it were available (similar to the above 2 but it means feature X is unlikely to get implemented without some external thing happening to make it make more sense) 4. They evaluated the possibility of adding feature X, and decided it doesn't make sense ever (e.g. because it directly cannibalizes their primary business model) If you would like feature X as a customer or potential customer, you may care which of those is actually the case. If you are responsible for a large chunk of their revenue, and feature X is make-or-break for you, 1 and 3 are ok scenarios for you, but in scenarios 2 and 4 you're unlikely to have much luck. If you are evaluating whether or not to start using this product, scenario 2 may be alarming enough to make you choose another product entirely, and scenario 4 tells you important things about their business model. The article is suggesting that people overestimate the probability of explanations 2, 3, and 4, and that most of the time explanation 1 is the real one, especially for obvious shortcomings in a product. By the author's evaluation, explanation 1 is "opportunity cost", explanations 3 and 4 are "strategic reason", and explanation 2 isn't really covered (though it could fall under "opportunity cost" if you stretch).