>
Having a working product with positive customer feedback is no Kevin Costner Hollywood gimmick; it takes tons of hard work.Hard work != Good software development skills
Granted you have to have at least some base level of skill, but I don't feel that the bar is necessarily that high.
> 'If you build a good product that can attract users, you'll have an easier job of convincing potential employers of your usefulness' is the only point I'm trying to get across. Do you disagree with that notion?
I don't disagree with that. I just feel that you are putting too much emphasis on 'monetization' when you're trying to get that point across. 'Monetization' is a completely different skill set from software development. The product doesn't attract users all on its own. You have to market it, and marketing is not a software development skill.
Creating a profitable side business around a product that you created is impressive, but not everyone can do it because it requires an individual that has a number of skills that don't fall under 'software developer.' Acting like only the people that can create a product, market it and manage the finances surrounding it (as well as make tough business decisions, etc) are the only people worth looking at as developers is a little over-the-top.
> I'm perplexed and somewhat disturbed by what I interpret as an assertion that creating a successful product indicates a lack of software development skills. Am I misunderstanding you?
You are. Creating a successful product requires more than just software development skills. In fact, it only implies a base level of software development skills. You cannot use it to deduce the actual level of a person's software development skills, only that they have a minimum level. It's possible for someone to be a super-skilled developer, but have mediocre marketing/business skills. If the job only calls for development skills, why should that person be discounted for a lack of skills not related to the job?