Ideally a product can do more. As a designer, controlling scope helps balance all the attributes of an experience. If you add too many features, the UI becomes cluttered and the important ones become harder to use. Or it becomes hard for a new user to get onboarded. Maybe the system becomes less performant. Even adding too much, too quickly, can create technical debt; making new adaptations harder to implement and get to market.
This is from the point of view of the producer. As a consumer, I want you to deliver all these without the negative aspects of the tradeoffs. At a cheaper price. Well duh, but it can't be done. Something's got to give. Sure. But whoever accomplishes this wins the customer. You're getting paid to manage tradeoffs. We may think there are a few unsolvable problems at the core of what we're designing, and sane tradeoffs is the best we can get.
This may be true. But it's not what we should be aiming for. The question is how do we accomplish what we think can't be done. You'd be surprised how limited we are by the current standards, tooling, competitors and expectations defined by those around us. We make up our minds about what's possible without pushing the boundary. Implicitly there's a "that's how it is" thought somewhere in there.