This is the same problem GitLab suffer from. I don’t know if it’s necessarily a bad thing: perhaps their success is because of the focus on breadth of features rather than the quality of each individual feature.
I don’t have an answer to that but it’s worth considering if the cost of using the value created by CloudFlare _is_ the lack of polish when features are launched.
GitLab is a good example of this phenomenon because it can be compared to GitHub: GitHub is high quality slowly whereas GitLab is lower quality faster... maybe CloudFlare is the GitLab to Akamai’s GitHub, both with their valuable place in the market.
It's a hard problem to solve: getting to some useful amount of "done" where it solves actual problems for customers is a long way from delivering a truly polished, quality product.
There's diminishing returns from 80% to 100% done, plus there's the human condition--it's a lot more fun to solve the hard problems than do the polishing at the end. I think that teams can get too enamored of the features they create, it's hard to get perspective when you've been staring at something for a while.
I've often wondered if the answer is to have multiple teams (pods) so that one team can get a feature to MVP, then hand it over. You're then not invested in "your" product, there's space to be objective and revisit the path from MVP onward.
I don’t have an answer to that but it’s worth considering if the cost of using the value created by CloudFlare _is_ the lack of polish when features are launched.
GitLab is a good example of this phenomenon because it can be compared to GitHub: GitHub is high quality slowly whereas GitLab is lower quality faster... maybe CloudFlare is the GitLab to Akamai’s GitHub, both with their valuable place in the market.