No. You've changed the subject. Your original post stated nothing about features not working when they're supposed to. That's a different matter, all together. You originally wrote:
To that statement, I replied that "New features are functionality."
Now, you're attempting to modify your original statement by adding caveats that actually change the meaning of the original claim. To be clear, I agree that features that don't work as they should should be fixed. But that's not what you said previously. You said, "It's much more about functionality than new features." And in reply to that statement, I stand by mine: New features are functionality.
You may or may not personally like or need a given feature, but for someone else, that feature might be exactly what he's been needing. Therefore, to him (or her) that new feature has added new functionality. Generally speaking, the terms are interchangeable.
I've never understood this assumption that if one doesn't need a particular feature, it must therefore be useless to everyone else. One's man's trash is another man's treasure. And one man's "feature I don't care about" is another man's brilliant solution to a problem.
You cannot say that features and functionality are two, different things. (Well, you can say it, but you'd be incorrect.)
