However, what always, always strikes me is that no matter the good idea, and no matter how well thought out and planned it is, it's always going to need a heap of work to make it move beyond the initial concept phase into something that has half a hope of standing the whims and vagaries of a real production environment, with real users.
Whatever project wins the day, gets company support to continue development -- and so far, months of solid work from extremely high-functioning and skilled teams is what it's taken to get anything that can actually be deployed and used consistently. There is no such thing as a quick win, even with a quick good idea.
It all goes to show, hard work always wins in the end, and execution is more often than not the downfall of so many otherwise great ideas.
The project written about in the linked article, which might seem like a simple piece of controllable hardware, will require months of significant time and effort from many, many dedicated folks to reach reality as a manufacturable product, but that's the same as almost anything that successfully sees the light of day. TANSTAAFL, indeed.
The interesting thing about modern systems of involvement is that it's entirely possible to assist a project along its way, without having to be a marketing genius, technical whiz, or market playing venture capitalist. As we see in our hack days, lots of little pushes can make more difference in some cases than one big push.
So damn right, the effort of making something real is huge. All the more reason to be sure that you're working on a really good, important idea.
And yes, a lamp with a LAMP stack is a bloody great idea.
This is for all those people who "just need a technical guy to code up my idea!"
It doesn't work like that. It _especially_ doesn't work like that if your idea is hardware…
It helps me to talk to the makers more clearly, more concise and more realistically. But it differentiates me so far from other product guys (or my uppers), as they do not understand, when I tell them, that their ideas might not be so easy to implement, as they believe.
Makes being the "middleware" between product-management and makers much more difficult, as I insist more and more on clear communicated specs, when I am used as a translator for the other product-guys.
Execution is the real deal. There was a nice quote from Derek Sivers, that ideas are just a multiplier for execution:
The current system seems to believe too much that "the more patents we have = the more innovation we have". This has come right out of the US president's mouth recently, and it was the same type of thinking for the unitary EU patent, and why Putin also wants to do something similar in Russia. The focus is entirely in the wrong direction.