Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Consumers can't lambast companies for not being innovative or daring enough, if they turn around and rip them a new one if they release anything other than something they're fully behind for 20 years, and either keep everything other than that to themselves or kill it before it gets to that stage. You can't have it both ways, people.
> You can't have it both ways, people. Of course we can. It's just that companies are now so geared to quarterly roadmaps that nothing has time to gain momentum unless it becomes a phenomenon. I see this with airlines as well; they launch a route in the middle of winter, or on a business route with schedules that are awkward for meetings, and then can it two months later because 'no-one uses it'. Which dissuades othe…
With a little thought, however, it will be obvious to you that the consumer's definition of "sufficient" cannot possibly match a company's definition in 100% of cases: there will be a grey area where at least some people will like mouthwash-flavored bubble gum, but not enough people do that the company can afford to keep it. (And see if it does take off later, as you say would have happened in many cases.)
Consumers have two alternatives: either allow companies to test products like this without backlash, and accept that some products will be discontinued due to lack of adoption, or to have stagnancy with only upstart companies trying new things and the existing brands sitting on the bylines looking for success built elsewhere that they can copy.
I support innovation and encourage companies to go out on a limb, without any backlash if they discontinue these tests. (Even if I loved the product.)