Actually, understanding that making "good" software is a balance between satisfying every narrow use-case (swiss army knife-syndrome) and making an excellent one-trick-pony is a basic skill that most software people get, either in school or later. Not understanding that there is such a trade-off would be pretty ignorant and (probably, in time) lead to a poor product.
You are missing the point. Asking to remove functions that you do not need, but others do is purely selfish. It also shows a lack of perspective on the software and is a view that is less relevant in my opinion because of that.
As I have clearly stated, _finding_ this optimal trade-off is hard. I don't claim to know what features should and should not be included in Lightroom 6 in order to make it a "good" or "successful" product (but, like everyone else, I offer my humble opinion, obviously biased by my own needs and knowledge). I do believe that having a "man with a vision" helps in many ways making "strong" products. I.e. reducing the influence of traditional "design comittees", "user study groups" or "every developer gets to put in whatever he wants to put in".
And the problem with that is you get a tool that suits that one person.
The reality with software such as PS is that people use it for a multitude of purposes and to solve a even more varied array of problems. And to my mind, some issues in software are due to those responsible for putting it together, are not really the typical end user and as a result do not always solve the right problems.
Feedback from multiple users can be quite illuminating as they can show where the software is broken or needs modifing in real world use.
In fact the original version of LR was changed significantly in exactly this way and thank god that happened