Custom website development services
in Sunnyvale

A company here often publishes code before it publishes a product page. The repository gets found first. Engineers read it. Investors read it too. And the website has to agree with what the code says.

The mismatch is common. A repository is active, issues are answered within a day, releases are tagged. The website still describes the project the way it was pitched two years ago. A visitor who checks both comes away unsure which one is current. That uncertainty costs more than an outdated screenshot.

So we treat the repository as a source the site reads from. Release tags, contributor counts and the date of the last commit can be pulled in and shown. They age on their own. Nobody has to remember to update them. When the project goes quiet, the site stops claiming momentum it no longer has, and that honesty is worth keeping.

Licence terms belong on the site in plain language, stating which parts are open, which parts need a commercial agreement and what a company may ship in its own product. Engineers evaluate this before they ask anybody. Making them read a licence file to find out is a lost hour, and sometimes a lost evaluation.

Documentation is the other half. A docs site and a marketing site have different jobs and different update rhythms. Trying to run both from one content model usually damages the docs. We keep them separate, link them properly, and make search work across the boundary. Breadcrumbs matter here. So does a version selector that survives a rename.

There is a governance question that the site should answer honestly: who merges, how a proposal is raised, and whether outside contributions are accepted at all. Plenty of repositories are published for transparency and closed to contribution, and saying so directly saves everyone time.

None of this is decoration. For a company whose first contact with a buyer is technical, the repository and the website are read as one artefact. If they disagree, the code wins, and the site loses its credibility.

Early companies here spend a long stretch with no public product. There are design partners. There are pilots under agreement. There is a great deal of work that cannot be named. The website still has to do something during that period.

The usual answer is a placeholder with a form. It rarely works. A reader who arrives from a referral wants to know whether this is worth a call, and a holding page tells them nothing.

A better build carries the problem rather than the product. What breaks today. Who it breaks for. Why the existing answers are unsatisfying. This can be written without disclosing a single partner, and it gives a qualified reader enough to decide. The specific customer names can wait until the agreements allow them.

Access control matters more here than on most sites. Pilot documentation, pricing under negotiation and technical specifications often need to be reachable by a named group and nobody else. That means real accounts, expiry on invitations, and a record of who opened what. A shared unlisted link is not access control. It gets forwarded.

The team will also want to publish quickly once an embargo lifts. Building for that means content that can be staged, reviewed and released on a date, without an engineer being awake at the time. It sounds small. It decides whether the announcement lands on the day it was planned.

Hiring runs alongside all of this. A company with no public product still recruits, and candidates research hard. Engineering practice, the stack, how decisions get made: these carry weight when the product cannot be shown yet.

We build the site so that the transition from stealth to public is a content change, and not a rebuild. The structure is laid down early. Sections stay hidden until they are ready. The day the embargo lifts, the work is publishing, and nothing else.