I don't get it. I read the entire post looking for an actual debunking of the "myth."
He mentions change.org - which shortly after it launched had several competitors. It wasn't until the company changed the way it was executing that it succeeded. If any of the other companies had executed better with the same idea then change.org would not have been a success. So it all came down to superior execution.
Everyone has ideas, not everyone can execute on them. Look at facebook/myspace - can you honestly say that facebook isn't a better executed social network?
He mentions change.org - which shortly after it launched had several competitors. It wasn't until the company changed the way it was executing that it succeeded. If any of the other companies had executed better with the same idea then change.org would not have been a success. So it all came down to superior execution.
Everyone has ideas, not everyone can execute on them. Look at facebook/myspace - can you honestly say that facebook isn't a better executed social network?