I just reskimmed the article's comments on ideas, and I think you're overlooking his nuanced point of view on "brilliant ideas". For "business" (that's the scop

I just reskimmed the article's comments on ideas, and I think you're overlooking his nuanced point of view on "brilliant ideas". For "business" (that's the scope of his comments) the key is being useful to a customer. He's exaggerating his position to counter the geek tendency to ignore this aspect. 2. for every Google there are ten examples of companies that had killer products that didn't sell - and for 1/10 the idea alone is enough. Nuance. 3. Even on the off chance that you do manage to stumble across someone who is as excited about your idea as you are - most people don't appreciate your idea (I can't even explain my current idea to myself half the time, as I'm lost in the gritty detail - that's why some kind marketing is needed). [BTW: I think that once your idea is successful, patent protection can be useful, esp to have something to sell to acquirers.] 4. What matters is what your customers think. - it's true that to sell something to someone, they have to think it's worth buying. If you think it's a brilliant idea, that's only helpful if it somehow translates (in some way) to something that customers want. Maybe you can communicate your conviction that it's great (like Jobs?), or (more likely) you use the idea to provide them with something that they already value. For the latter, the brilliance of the idea is utterly irrelevant to them; they don't even need to know it exists. 9. The idea is very nearly irrelevant. - he's not saying the idea is irrelevant, but almost irrelevant. Another nuance. He's saying it is relevant - just much less than he, or the hypothetical audience he writes for, would tend to weigh it.