In this manner, it could be just as well said that it is not market utility per se, which produces wealth, but rather money which people pay for a product or service marketed. And what does it take from my argument? I think nothing. Or do you think that market utility, or customers money, for that matter, comes on its own? You also need plenty of luck to find a bestseller idea that you can make money on. So how is it actually different from saying that you still need luck, plenty of luck, to become wealthy nowadays?
No, market utility is what induces people to spend money.
Your explanation is superficial as it only looks at the surface level of what is happening (money changing hands) instead of looking at why money is changing hands (people find the product/service useful and agree to exchange their money for it). Money only represents wealth, market utility of products is what actually creates wealth. Money is just a representation of value that has been created, but market utility is what is what actually creates value.
But that's the whole point that I was trying to get across! I specifically came up with this "superficial" example to show you that your "market utility" is actually of the same kind of superficiality. I could rephrase your own words and say that you are looking at only the effect instead of looking at the cause which made this utility possible in the first place. In today's world of relentless competition you should have a lot of luck to find something which would be worth marketing and could obtain that utility.
Microsoft had been a no-name until they stroke a contract with IBM, which was thanks to his mother being a friend of an IBM CEO. They had nothing apart from a shitty version of a shitty computer language.
Let's assume this is 100% true as written. Luck played a part in that Mary Gates helped secure an early contract, but luck did not make Microsoft's products desired by IBM or the rest of the world. If the product was "shitty" as you say, IBM doesn't use it and the rest of the world doesn't desire it. Luck didn't make Microsoft's products useful and therefore demanded, intelligence of the builder and market utility of his product did.
You obviously fail to see my point. You don't see the forest for the trees. Microsoft's products were not shitty, they were so-so at best (in fact they quite were). There were more than enough competing products likely much better than Microsoft's but their developers didn't have their mothers on friendly terms with CEO's of biggest corporations. This is where luck comes to matter a lot, actually enough to make all the difference.