Your comment is a mixture of dismissiveness and helpful (though perhaps tangential) information. It would be much better if you took out the dismissiveness.
As a power user and as an executive manager, I am extremely frustrated to see yet another company creating a "part database" (we have more than enough of these, thanks, and they don't actually solve a problem that a user actually has) rather than tackling ANY of the actual technical problems in the space.
However, your point is well taken. My apologies.
First, with regards to not needing another parts database: when I was leading the marketing of an EDA tool, designers would often tell me that they didn't need yet another new feature in the tools - they needed content so they could actually be productive with the tools (rather than spending hours making the content before they could even start designing).
I would hear this over and over when I went to technical events, tradeshows, through our feedback systems, etc. If you search HackerNews, you'll also see many people citing the same need (top comment here): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8329373
Existing parts solutions in the space are of dubious quality (lack of standards, quality issues) and are often only solving bits and pieces. Designers would tell me they didn't trust them at all, so they would end up making their own models from scratch. This is one of the reasons large companies hire whole teams and dedicated librarians to create CAD models.
We thought what if we could provide this data more systematically, in a way that brought standardization, interoperability, & transparency to design content, that we could help the entire industry, especially small to mid-size companies that don't have dedicated librarians.
This content today is symbols, footprints, and 3D models, but we plan to expand to other forms of content, such as SPICE models and eventually even larger interoperable reference designs built on vetted, trusted data.
1) Press coverage does not automatically imply either vision or competency. See: Theranos.
2) Do not assume that I do not have the bonafides to critique properly just because I am willing to have my rudeness pointed out. I've probably been fighting with EDA tools longer than she has been alive. And I ran a group which had a budget of more than $70 million for EDA tools.
I assure you I have very strong opinions about EDA tools that are backed up by very hard won experience.
And one of the many of those opinions is that not once did any engineer with experience ever say "Gee, we really need somebody else to manage our parts or footprints." TO A PERSON they all said "We'll do it. Anybody else will screw it up."
So, quite certainly, I have enough vision of the field to deem it "not a technical challenge". You can feel free to disagree, but you're going to have to bring some experience or data to convince me.
And, in case you think I'm being unfair, I can assure you that I ripped several layers of upper managers at Altium a new one for buying Octopart instead of fixing their tool.