I have first hand experience with storing large assets in git, which is the use case they mentioned. Git is just bad at it. From performance issues to corruption to bugs, it's simply not something the git team cares about. LFS is a quirky afterthought.

We couldn't actually use git for our asset management, because when you're dealing with 1GB+ Photoshop files, versioning them with any reasonable granularity breaks your Git repository, makes clone times and local file storage requirements astronomical, and doesn't really make sense anyway. We ended up using SVN, since it only transfers what you check out and you can check out subtrees trivially, but then that required getting a GUI SVN client, providing it to our art team, teaching them how to use it, and then having them come to me whenever something in SVN got confused or broken (e.g. they opened and then closed a document and Photoshop updated the thumbnail, now there's a merge conflict and they can't commit).

We also ended up using Google Drive for a lot of stuff, and eventually migrating to Team Drives once that was a thing, but that doesn't integrate with... basically anything, honestly, or at least not with any reasonable degree of straightforwardness.

I don't work for that company anymore, but the thing that would make me most interested in this product would be:

1. Self-hosting it (would pay 'enterprise' rates for this); or

2. Being able to locally proxy/cache assets for users in the office, so that committing a 1 GB PSD didn't require 20 artists to all pull down 1 GB each from the server

A lot of people seem to be comparing this to actual Git, but this doesn't replace Git unless you're using Git wrong; what it replaces is the absolute disaster of a workflow that a lot of companies have to try to build/use/teach internally.