I just want to add one thing: The quality of the presentation, design, and execution is better than many Ycombinator start-ups (at launch day/ first couple of months). I haven't tried the actual product, but from outside it looks neat and well presented.
Now there are lots of pretty damn good sites that YC alumni are making from launch day; but the fact that a good number isn't, suggests that PG might want to improve his filter process a bit.
Now there are lots of pretty damn good sites that YC alumni are making from launch day; but the fact that a good number isn't, suggests that PG might want to improve his filter process a bit.
Do beautiful sites at launch day correlate well with IPOs? I'll supply the answer: no. Many beautiful sites will not IPO. Many tech companies which IPOed had abominable sites at launch day. The long-term salience of this is an amusing historical footnote and nothing more.
> suggests that PG might want to improve his filter process a bit.
I'm not sure how this is related. From what I've observed, PG selects promising founders, not great site-builders. Is it fair to expect all of them to create beautiful sites?
Well, if you are in the SaaS business, I expect that you have a beautiful and functional interface. If you are providing me something not related to the interface, then I don't care. (e.g. I'm using prgmr.com but I don't really care about the interface, their site design or an admin back-end; all I need is the shell).
yes. If you in theory pick the "best of the best" you expect .... the "best". that include the visual packaging and presentation of the companies products / services.
Now there are lots of pretty damn good sites that YC alumni are making from launch day; but the fact that a good number isn't, suggests that PG might want to improve his filter process a bit.