Sure, adding features that hurt your stability and your chances of growth is a terrible idea. Many a company has made that mistake before, and ended up with an unworkable product.
We do have to make sure that, with the features we have, the product is actually viable though. There's also many projects out there that just won't get anywhere because there is no compelling reason to use them over the alternatives.
For instance, I know of a small data visualization project that happens to have far better performance than KineticJS and D3: It was built precisely because those two libraries were tried, but just didn't provide the right frame rates for what a team was trying to do. The problem is that the current implementation's only interactive features are pan and zoom: Not even an event on mouseover. Want to highlight something based on a search? No dice. This makes the library so narrow in its applications that the project just can't capture users.
an MVP should be minimum, but we can't forget it must also be viable.
We do have to make sure that, with the features we have, the product is actually viable though. There's also many projects out there that just won't get anywhere because there is no compelling reason to use them over the alternatives.
For instance, I know of a small data visualization project that happens to have far better performance than KineticJS and D3: It was built precisely because those two libraries were tried, but just didn't provide the right frame rates for what a team was trying to do. The problem is that the current implementation's only interactive features are pan and zoom: Not even an event on mouseover. Want to highlight something based on a search? No dice. This makes the library so narrow in its applications that the project just can't capture users.
an MVP should be minimum, but we can't forget it must also be viable.