My reaction from reading both your original pitch and your revised pitch is that you were being quite vague. PG knows about the problems of collaboration, limitations of current tools, etc, you don't need to sell him on the existence of pain points. What you do have to sell him on is how your tool is uniquely suited for solving these pain points, which is what I missed entirely in your blog post. His interview style is to cut you off when you are telling him things that he already knows or when you are being to vague. He will force you to be specific and drill down on the points of your idea that are most critical.
The part that is most striking to me about the vagueness of the pitch is:
>“Not really, no. A wiki is more like a google doc – it has one true version at any given time. Sure, there’s a revision history, but nobody lives in the revision history. Rocketr is about having one author for a given note, and a threaded conversation around it.”
The answer to that question is yes it is like a wiki - with these key differences. With only ten minutes to pitch, anchoring your concept to something that is well understood by your audience is critical.
If you really don't think it is like a wiki at all (which would be hard to believe), then anchor it to something else that will be easy to understand, e.g. "it's like email, but the conversations get stored and revisited and edited at will by any of the participants." Anything you can use to make your concept clear in an instant is extra time to sell them on your team and your vision for why this idea can take over the world.
