Unfortunately this 'features matter most' attitude is endemic to the whole computer industry. Almost everyone ignores the 'non-functional requirements' such as reliability, security, usability, etc. A couple of examples:
- Microsoft Office beat the competition largely by adding features more quickly - since software reviews focus on what they can easily measure in a few days usage, which means features and ease of learning the new features (not long term usability), it tended to always win the reviews and gain market share until it was dominant.
- in the Ubuntu world, many people jump on the latest release even if they don't really need the new features - good thing for testing, but not so good if they simply need a reliable desktop system, for which the Ubuntu stable releases would be more appropriate.
- traditionally Windows had more features than Linux, but Linux was much more reliable and secure - however, most people chose Windows based on features. Linux is approaching feature parity for desktops so this is no longer so valid.
If it was common practice to quantitatively measure and review software based on these non-functionals, the world would be a different place, but it would also take a lot longer to review software...