Edit: This may have come across as too terse to pass the not-just-civil-but-nice test so I've added more explanation to my choices
I wasn't following the initial wave of submissions so here's my fresh-eyes take on the finalists. I'd particularly like to see other people's assessments of the whole field (vs individual submissions)
Not Ambitious Enough: These are in competitive spaces -- even if they delivered on their goals they wouldn't be #1 of their kind
Krewe (There are so very many social networks -- and nextdoor already exists. What makes this indespensible?)
Pikii (There are tons of pseudonymous social networks in particular -- what are you trying to accomplish?)
Too Narrow: I don't think there's going to be enough customers in love with this product for a funded growth business to thrive. Specifically, these have a low enough ceiling that they'd be stronger self-funding than taking outside money.
Author Investments
AutoMicroFarm
Bad Market: Your customers don't care about the problem you're solving:
Casepad (Lawyers are pathologically tech-phobic and by their nature are spending someone else's money and taking a percentage. Cost savings are taking money out of their pocket.)
Tiz.com (Liquor distribution is a de jure or de facto monopoly/kleptocracy. Being inefficient is a profit center for them.)
Pet Rocks: These solutions lack a problem
Eat My Dust (It's free to check if you live next to a superfund site. Have you?)
Utiliz (For almost every residential customer this is saving literally dollars a month)
Too Ambitious: These applicants are so far from winning that money would be premature
Brodlist (This is one of the toughest markets on both tech and marketing grounds. You need to demonstrate that you are better than the teams that are currently struggling)
Gresham Dollar (Your competition has an army and a navy)
Cowardly Lions: You already have what you need to succeed within you
Hacksplaining
Pinboard
Yet Anothers: Techie itch-scratching is an overserved market
Brightwork
Cadwolf
Survivors:
Jury Board
Siris Rooms
Unnamed Infection-resistant materials
Unnamed Trusted Skill Certification
Wanderlust
WedWell
I wasn't following the initial wave of submissions so here's my fresh-eyes take on the finalists. I'd particularly like to see other people's assessments of the whole field (vs individual submissions)
Not Ambitious Enough: These are in competitive spaces -- even if they delivered on their goals they wouldn't be #1 of their kind
Too Narrow: I don't think there's going to be enough customers in love with this product for a funded growth business to thrive. Specifically, these have a low enough ceiling that they'd be stronger self-funding than taking outside money. Bad Market: Your customers don't care about the problem you're solving: Pet Rocks: These solutions lack a problem Too Ambitious: These applicants are so far from winning that money would be premature Cowardly Lions: You already have what you need to succeed within you Yet Anothers: Techie itch-scratching is an overserved market Survivors: