Removing things because of relative low usage often seems like flawed logic to me. Sometimes it makes sense (most users only use the most used features), but qu

Removing things because of relative low usage often seems like flawed logic to me. Sometimes it makes sense (most users only use the most used features), but quite often a piece of software will consist of a large number of low-usage features. Take them all away and you've lost most of your users. Basically zipf's law in action. So the value provided by the software is in flexibility and customization. How should we decide if a feature is worth keeping in such software?