> Why should he tell you what you should change to get approved? You already said that you had new ideas about how to differentiate your service against Upscribe - why not list these out into a roadmap?
The roadmap suggestion seems like a good idea, but Embedly should tell OP what they'd like to see different because they're the ones who, contrary to previous communications, suddenly have a problem with it, and they should have more respect for the time OP has put into their work. They dismiss it and say they "won't argue" when OP wasn't being remotely argumentative. They say "please submit when you are out of MVP stage" -- what does that even mean, please come back to sell your product, which is tailored to our platform, after you've left the stage that requires making sales?
> At the moment, you're claiming that 'novelty' is the choice of consumers to choose a different product. That's not novelty, that's competition.
They do not make this claim. I think if you read it again carefully, you'll see that they don't.
> ...if you truly believed in what you were doing, then you would put this time in upfront on the product on the speculation that it would be so good, they could not turn you down.
A.) Should every product and company be a grand vision that you "really believe in?" What's wrong with making something that you think is useful and that people will buy and that you'd enjoy building, but which is certainly not going to change the world? What if you can't build your grand vision right now because you lack the skills, funding, and experience -- tough luck, you don't get to try and fail to launch a lemonade stand, you have to mangle an idea you actually care about instead?
B.) Of course they could still turn him down. That is the point. OP wasn't willing to gamble more than an MVP on the whims and wishes of this company.
And clearly, OP had good reason to be conservative.