So why didn't Coffee Connection in Boston make millions selling frappucino?
They are the ones that hold the trademark.
They are the ones that hold the trademark.
Boston is cold as hell in winter and not too hot the rest of the time. Nobody wants iced drinks when it's cold. Plus Boston is a small city.
California, on the other hand, is a huge state full of teenagers with lots of disposable income and most of it is hot most of the year.
So: introduce an iced drink in 1 city in a cold place = not so great idea, not that much money. Introduce an iced drink in the biggest state in the country where it's almost always hot in most of the state = great idea, lots of money. So the one with the better idea and the better idea of how to implement the idea (Starbucks) made a lot more money and bought out the business who executed better but executed better on what turned out to be a crappy idea.
Starbucks had what customers claim is inferior execution compared to Coffee Connection's version, but their idea was better and their ideas of what/how/where to execute was better.
So in the end mediocre execution of better idea = billions in revenue.
Superior execution of a mediocre idea = get bought out by above and cease to exist.
It's true an architect can't build without builders. But unless the builders have a good plan, no matter how well they execute, they're just wasting time/energy/resources.
Telling someone who's taken the time to come up with good plans/scenarios/alternatives that once the plan is done they add no value is just as much a slap in the face as an "MBA-business guy" telling programmers that the second they finish writing the code for an application, they're useless and add no further value unless a change needs to be made.
And you can execute perfectly but these days you need so much insight and perspective to be able to detect changes in current and prepare alternate courses of action while managing remaining resources ...
By a lot of accounts, Coffee Connection came out with a similar, but much better tasting ("better executed" as you put it) drink.
If you re-read you own comment you will see why Starbucks get a better execution than Coffee Connection :)
Why the hell are people still arguing this point.
In my mind the argument of "execution" vs. "good idea" is like arguing whether food or water or air or sleep is more important.
You need all. Case closed.
I think as people who "execute" programmers tend to have (from what I've seen over a year) a knee-jerk "execution is everything" reaction out of some deep insecurity or something.
The very existence of this "I can't think of any good ideas" is testament to the notion that execution is not the be-all end-all.
If I can never find a programming partner, worse case scenario I can still use my contacts to raise capital and then hire programmers, though my negotiating leverage in raising capital would be a lot less than if I had a partner who can help put together the idea.
What is this programmer going to do without a good idea that people want and a good idea how to make money off of it?
Start programming randomly until he accidently codes a useful service people pay for?
"O----kay"
Because you obviously haven't got a clue what you are talking about, keep contradicting yourself, and don't know anything about neither ideas nor execution. At least not in real life.
I won't reply more to this conversation - it is a pain to write, and probably boring to read.
I just got a bit disillusioned.