And no offense taken :) I think it's important to keep in mind that startups grow and mature. Right now we're two people (only one programmer) who've been working for a few months. We've learned a lot and (in)validated more than a few crucial hypotheses, but things are far from over and our aspirations are huge.
As PG once said to us, "Microsoft started with a BASIC interpreter for the Altair."
I think we should credit the two of you for convincing PG. After all, having a solid group of people is more useful than having a solid product. This is a great start and with you two at the helm, we can expect a lot more. Looking forward to it!
Somebody put this on a T-shirt, please. I will buy Several copies. (Relatedly, product is almost always the tip. If you think Zygna is defined by Farmville or Google is defined by that one big web page they have, you're crazy.)
I don't, but comparing Zynga to this is apples and oranges. That being said, I think Zynga is overvalued right now.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that more and more I'm seeing startups that are features, not products. It's certainly not limited to this instance, but this was the most glaring to me, which is why I brought up the comparison and posed the question.
I wondered the same, yet you have xobni, rapportive and this fresh new task-force.
Perhaps this is just the beginning, helping you getting things done, by first organizing your mail, transforming them into traceable tasks, and next would be a full blown task-force solution
I realize that it's useful, and a great product, and I'm not implying otherwise, but this model seems to stretch the startup concept very thin.