I'm not an electronics expert, but I know a fair bit about search implementations.
I'd be guessing the partname->vendor price matching thing is non-trivial (because I bet the vendors all use different names and product codes). But it's not that hard.
The search itself is something that could be replicated fairly easily by someone who knew what they are doing.
The tech doesn't seem that complex, but successful businesses aren't about ideas, or technology. They are about applying technology to ideas and getting people to use it. The hard part to replicate of what octopart did is the 'putting all the pieces together' part.
But "we put the pieces together" isn't a defensible advantage. Once one company has done it others can easily copy it (with less skill) unless they have something that makes it hard to copy.
Here's some common defensible advantages:
1) Technical. Google developed a technically better search algorithm than their competition and stayed better long enough to become dominant in the market. (That market share in turn allowed them to build a massively profitable business).
As discussed, I don't think Octopart have a technical advantage.
2) Network effects. Facebook had better network effects (and more reliable technology) than their competition.
Octopart doesn't seem to use network effects anywhere.
3) Business relationships. Microsoft leveraged its existing business relationships with computer manufactures in operating systems to build market share in web browsers by stopping them installing Netscape
Octopart doesn't have enough market power to do this.
4) Capital. Netflix offered movie studios enough money to make streaming attractive, which other companies had never been able to deliver.
Octopart doesn't have a capital advantage
There are other defensible advantages, too, but I'd be interested in knowing which applied here. What's to stop me hiring a bunch of cheap coders, copying Octopart and then beginning a race-to-the-bottom in terms of profits?
PG has replied to my initial comment and said that they have broader long-term plans. I think that's good, because I stand by my initial comment: I'm surprised this was attractive to investors.
This is key. "Putting all the pieces together" is usually less glamourous than coding something new and hoping it gets picked up on TechCrunch, but it's huge.
I'd be guessing the partname->vendor price matching thing is non-trivial (because I bet the vendors all use different names and product codes). But it's not that hard.
The search itself is something that could be replicated fairly easily by someone who knew what they are doing.