I understand your frustration having used EDA software, and worked in software development on these tools. However, we set out to build an interoperable content

I understand your frustration having used EDA software, and worked in software development on these tools. However, we set out to build an interoperable content repository rather than yet another EDA tool. 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 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.