No! This is what makes you a good entrepreneur. It's in no way a reasonable definition of a good programmer.
There are already dozens of dimensions that you could use to measure programmer greatness: being able to solve very difficult problems, writing very maintainable code, writing working code very fast, writing very rigorous mathematically correct code, debugging very fast, having good intuition about how the project will evolve over its life, working well in a particular team, working well with other disciplines, being able to deal with corporate politics and still get shit done etc.
Tying product design and marketing to this plethora is a wholly unwarranted conflation. Even if it's just two software developers in a garage.
Agreed. This attitude is why software has such a bad reputation. People are in such need for software, that they will tolerate horribly unreliable software if it happens to sort of solve their problems. Good software is rarely available, so people just expect it to be bad.
If people started demanding software as reliable as the things produced by other engineering professions (buildings that don't collapse, etc.), then being a good programmer would be strictly tied to making money. But right now, the code is the least important part of software companies. The idea and the marketing is significantly more important. (Hello, Twitter.)
Also, people are quick to associate personal gain with the economic value of a program. The Facebook founders may be rich, but automatic trading systems handle a lot more money (even though the programmers didn't necessarily get rich writing it). Facebook can have as many bugs as it wants, and they will be fine. An automatic trading system can ... cause problems ... if it is not bug-free (and well-written, or written by good developers). But you never hear about that sort of thing from these people; only how their blog makes $10/day and that how they are a genius and visionary for doing that.
It's true, but that's only one way to be a great programmer. There are a lot of positions out there where it might be incredibly valuable to an organization to build a new CMS, a better UI, or a more robust middle tier, but these aren't independently valuable. With two or three people who can do these things, you can make something people pay money for, but that doesn't mean that the individual programmers aren't competent.
If you disagree with this 1x1 matrix that means you value form above function... which means you're destined to be a starving artist who writes software that is great for your imaginary friends, but will never become a great programmer that writes things real people want to use.
[ build something that people will pay money for by any means necessary ]
Much easier to remember.