The fact that their own web page doesn't render on every major browser or at every standard resolution screans louder than anything they say on it.

If you disqualify "laggards" as prospects, maybe you don't deserve to succeed.

And if you think that servicing one type of customer is at the expense of another, maybe you're not yet senior enough to be my vendor.

ADDENDUM:

Why is it that my hardest learned business lessons get downmodded so quickly? Who here is such a good hacker that they could afford to leave money on the table?

I'm saying there is a strong correlation of laggards across fields. If you have a new service, people that lag in another are not likely to take it on initially. So if you have design choices to make, make them to sell to the people that are likely to start using your service first.

Worrying about the rest is a waste of time -- and new companies don't have time to waste.

And I'm saying if you claim to be an expert web app developer (implicit in the "3 day claim"), dynamically rendering to any resolution should be a piece of cake.

Just like the "Learn Java in 24 hours" implies that its authors are also experts, right?

There is much more to an app, but I see your point.

Yeah, I think it's bullshit how they don't support my 320x240 machine running Mosaic on Windows 3.1. These guys are amateurs.

Here's a business lesson: don't implement features that cost more than your expected marginal increase in revenue. e.g. supporting edge case platforms at the expense of most of your users.

I loaded the home page in Internet Explorer 7 (should be main stream enough?). The page generates javscript errors when I click a link...

Will someone please explain how being able to dynamically render to the requesting browser (whatever resolution) is at the expense of anything. These are experts, remember.

This started out very simply. I can't read their "About" page at 800 x 600. wtf? An HTML <TABLE> does that automatically for crying out loud.

If they can't do the easy stuff, why should I trust them with my hard stuff?

I have an 16 month old ultra-portable that maxes at 1024x768... If I happen to be a person who:

A) Doesn't maximize my browser B) uses the bookmarks pane in my browser C) uses the history pane in my browser D) uses Flock ( http://www.flock.com/ )

then my viewing area would be in the 800x600 neighborhood.

Indeed. But ultra portable approaches the mobile space. I suppose with the meteoric rise of celltop and ultra portables, it should be a more prominent issue. It's interesting to think that the average pixel count might actually decrease.

My celltop has zoom but the best sites just have another version for it.

2007 was the first year that more laptops than desktops were sold. If you consider browser enabled cellphones, I wonder how those numbers change.