His main point? "Once they have that reputation as being awesome it will stick around no matter how badly they perform after their initial success"

And I totally agree. In fact, after a success the odds are more in your favor. So if you can't succeed again, it calls into question your 'true' level of talent.

The vast majority of these silicon-valley companies are built with investors' money (typically from Venture Capital firms). The VC business model generates outsized returns on a few successful companies which pay for all the failures. Careers and entire funds can swing to success based on the outcome of one company so if you're a founder you deserve that credit. It also means you've returned tons of extra money to investors that pays for all your subsequent losses.

Kevin Rose specifically is an interesting case because Digg was not a success for his investors, but her personally did well.

To me, this all sounds like the Fundamental Attribution Error. Kevin Rose is thought to have some special talent, when really all he did was get lucky, and really, not even lucky enough to get his investors paid. His subsequent failures would seem to support this.

However, we must have our stars and Time coverboys. I would say that the reason he keeps getting biz is directly related to his fame, and not so much his business acumen or skills. Call it Calcanis Syndrome.

Shave. Shower. Get a haircut. Despite the 'hoodie chic' look, make sure it's a clean hoodie. Or better yet, wear something nicer. (no, not a suit, but a step up from a hoodie will help people take you seriously).

As far as general likeability goes, usually that stems from people either complaining or saying offense things.

All of that is under your control.

Example: Sean Stephenson http://timetostand.com/ (see short video)

Not attacking you personally - but anybody, .. anybody at all who gives me that response are basically chickening out. Consider this the opposite problem of "business guy don't want to even learn how to code, give all sorts of reasons". Technical guy don't want to learn how to hustle, give all sorts of reasons. Again, Sean Stephenson.

So I'd reframe the question: it's more about solving real problems. If you can solve it with cool new innovation/code, great. I assume the goal we're talking about here is to build a for-profit business.

And yet he was such a persuasive and entertaining speaker than even when I thought he was dead wrong I wanted to hear more and find common ground with him. I liked him even when he was being an ass, and even in cases where I knew he was wrong (eg when he deliberately skipped over some significant issue because it undermined the argument he was making).

The things you mention help, but are by no means essential. You don't even need to believe in yourself, as long as you believe sufficiently in your idea.

I have worked for start-ups where people told me what to do, and also have my own bootstrapped start-up. I prefer the later. I think it is important to be well rounded in abilities from coding to business development. That way, you can see through people's bullshit a lot easier, and there is plenty of that going around in the industry.

Having said that, you can be an ideas person, but those ideas better be successful more times than not. Success five years ago and failures at every turn since does not exactly invoke confidence.

I had never thought of it like that before, but it makes so much sense and explains so many things...

Like why google is willing to pay 1-2 million per developer... But half of the bay area companies on careers.stackoverflow don't offer relocation.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U&feature=fvwre...

"I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand." - Confucius

Even better, learn to both hack and hustle. That is truly where the magic happens.

Therefore hiring an ideas guy makes perfect sense...

I get your point and mostly agree, but just want to stress that "open source" and "for profit" are not mutually exclusive. There are a handful of companies out there making a nice profit specifically by focusing on open source.

That said, clearly it (building an "open source company") should be a conscious decision, and you have to understand the subtleties that go along with it.

...uh, where exactly? Everywhere I know of is crying out for developers. The case for outsourcing is hugely overstated- having your entire development team half the world and a seven hour time difference away is a very real issue.

Everyone claims to be crying out for developers, but they reject all the candidates they're presented with, so in practice it's hard to get a job as a developer.

I'm not the best developer in the world, and I practically get offers in just going to bars in SF...

Hope you don't spend the rest of your life either trolling or being a miserable wretch shitting on successful people. :)