> She knows from experience that having the best of the best is necessary for your success in tech
This is simply not true. There is a metric ton of examples of "success in tech" WITHOUT "having the best of the best". Microsoft would be the prime example. Twitter - another.
That's now. Look back to their FailWhale period. They certainly didn't have "best of the best", yet they did succeed. Though I guess you can count Arrington's constant cheer-leading as the best of marketing... but it'd still be a stretch.
> Why do you think Spolsky started his career there right out of college?
Because of their stock option program, why else. But that's irrelevant.
Microsoft did not succeed because they had "best of the best", but because of their underhanded sales and customer entrapment tactics.
Point being the company don't need "best of the best" to succeed. It's often sufficient, but it's certainly not necessary.
Solid teams and people get to be named solid only after they perform.
You are looking at those companies after they won, but when they started and with no proven credentials against them I doubt you would have the same view about them then.
When I think about software I think about C++. Microsoft's core teams are built from the best of the best. For example their compiler and even some Windows internals (somebody should tell Linus about how a driver works :-) ).
Its the other thousands on the periphery that are approaching mediocrity. Although still quite profitable.
If MS was a Java fun house like Yahoo, they would have tanked long ago.
This is simply not true. There is a metric ton of examples of "success in tech" WITHOUT "having the best of the best". Microsoft would be the prime example. Twitter - another.