>>First of all - "pure development" has been headed for commodity for decades.

Sure- though waves of change have created need. Business will tolerate that as long as it carries a visible business benefit, but that's more and more difficult, since so much recent "newness" is just a new way to do the same things rather than a big process shift.

>>Guess what, some nuts wrote a thing called Quick Books, and look what happened.

That's my own example. ;-)

>>Second, the notion that good developers need obscurity or the like in order to succeed is a dubious one. Yes, there's a genuine need for people who chase the flavor of the month and there will always be people who will pay them well for it, but the real money makers have been people who have made complicated things seem simple

Agreed. FWIW there is some complexity we didn't invent ourselves- e.g. red blood cell metabolism, ankle fracture patterns etc etc. People who engage that complexity and deliver simple solutions are wonderful inventors and leaders. There is other complexity we inflict on ourselves. E.g. the Entity framework. ;-) Some people make a lot of $ simplifying that, but a pragmatist always asks the pyramid question: yes, the Pyramids are amazing and a great tribute to human capability. But what are they for? ;-)