Even though I agree with a lot of the feedback posted here I find the vast majority of the comments posted in this teardown to be too juvenile and not constructive enough to be helpful.
It's part of a blog post I'm writing, in which I dive deep into specific actionable feedback for them. I was sharing a sneak peek.
I'm curious what the underlying goal of your blog post is. If it is to get the attention of these companies so that they might hire you some day, the tone seems quite harsh. The review was pretty hard to get through, and not because the website is meh.
Imagine you were talking directly to the designer and engineer who made this. Would you laugh out loud at them for using stock photos? Or would you ask why they chose those photos and provide alternatives to help improve the design?
Even if your blog post goes in to this you can’t rely on someone reading a tear down AND a long-form blog post.
It’s your content at the end of the day, but I’d be much less receptive or outright hostile to someone being a jerk in a design critique.
This is not a design critique, it's an unprofessional take down of a landing page for a product you evidently haven't used.
The site would be sufficient if it was a white page with a registration box; their method of marketing has very little to do with the site itself as they've built themselves up on referral pretty much all the way. If you're on the site, you've probably heard of the platform from someone in your network.
I used Superhuman for about a year but stopped after I switched roles, the product is great but isn't a great fit for the work I do at the moment - it does offer something very different (and good) in terms of the pure user experience and has evidently been well thought through - unlike this deck.
Did the author of this review know something about start-ups? I used Superhuman, I didn't like it, to clarify Im not a fan boy.
1) since I know Superhuman, they have the same landing page, It's look like they have a lot of work to do.
2) Still with that "horrible" website (I didn't like either), the get a ton of money on funding.
3) That website makes enough request access that they can't manage, so they prioritize referrals.
4) A good UX is that one who achieve the objective, its seems like this website make his job.
Too much theory and Dribbble, and no business/product orientation.
I do happen to know a lot about startups, as I've had a lot of my own, and I've worked for startups in the marketing department for the last 10 years.
Re No 2: Isn't that sad af?! It's all about the TEAM and that Rahul successfully founded Rapportive and has loads of YC-like connections. That's why I mention "walled garden." Also, with that much money they should have a legit website. Shows they don't value marketing and just assume they're the best.
Re No. 3: There's NO proof they have 100k people on waiting list. It only gets 169.9k visits / month, according to SimilarWeb. What would that conversion rate be? It's sad fact that A LOT of startups straight up lie. Not saying this is the case here but I would be far from surprised.
4) You're on DN. You're not a mainstream audience visitor. This was from the point of view outside this niche tech community.
not sure I understand last comment.
2.) Funding money =/= customers.
4.) Don't think the website alone actually achieved their objective, it was merely a shell.
Anyways, the review has valid points. Nothing about what was said is original and can't be done with gmail. Fast email system =/= closing deals faster. But that's just my 2c.
Amen to No. 2!