Cold, logical advice, based on your questions: "don't do it."
It appears the things closest to your heart are technical issues. "[business questions] would also be really nice." Literally a last place afterthought.
That's not knocking you--there's absolutely nothing wrong with a technical view. But a successful business is primarily not about the technical issues. It's a people thing--customers, users, employees, suppliers. Case in point: a current thread on HN right now is how terrible SAP is. Technically terrible. As a business they're terrific. They know how what the important people issues are to them, and how to address them (i.e., how to sell to the decision makers, how to "impedence match" with their customer organizations)*. (And if you have no clue what I could possibly mean by "impedence match" then that's a hint.)
I think the odds are high you wouldn't, at this point, actually enjoy building a business. Pursue what it sounds like you're most interested in--building systems. For example, go ahead and create a POC for your idea. If possible, create some IP protections. Then expose it to the world as an example of your skills and abilities. Leverage that to get a gig in an interesting place, maybe as a founding engineer. Get exposure to the really important people and business aspects of a business. Become a team lead, manage a team, grow a team. Own a product, grow it. All of this doesn't necessarily take decades, but it won't be a year, either.
Basis for advice: Been there :) Started out as uber-geek, totally focused on the technical. Entrepreneur at very eary stage. System grand-slam technical success, business not so much. Despite being at the perfect opportunity point, product never got the traction and success it could have. Gradually, over the years, got into the people side and realized that's even more fun.
* [edit: Sorry, "impedence mismatch" is an engineering term (esp. electrical engineering). It describes the bad results you get when you connect two otherwise-good systems which have differing fundemantal properties. I will say that the comment is kind of pleasingly meta; its an excellent analogy (trust me!), but is totally inappropriate for an audience which is not familiar with the core term.]
It appears the things closest to your heart are technical issues. "[business questions] would also be really nice." Literally a last place afterthought.
That's not knocking you--there's absolutely nothing wrong with a technical view. But a successful business is primarily not about the technical issues. It's a people thing--customers, users, employees, suppliers. Case in point: a current thread on HN right now is how terrible SAP is. Technically terrible. As a business they're terrific. They know how what the important people issues are to them, and how to address them (i.e., how to sell to the decision makers, how to "impedence match" with their customer organizations)*. (And if you have no clue what I could possibly mean by "impedence match" then that's a hint.)
I think the odds are high you wouldn't, at this point, actually enjoy building a business. Pursue what it sounds like you're most interested in--building systems. For example, go ahead and create a POC for your idea. If possible, create some IP protections. Then expose it to the world as an example of your skills and abilities. Leverage that to get a gig in an interesting place, maybe as a founding engineer. Get exposure to the really important people and business aspects of a business. Become a team lead, manage a team, grow a team. Own a product, grow it. All of this doesn't necessarily take decades, but it won't be a year, either.
Basis for advice: Been there :) Started out as uber-geek, totally focused on the technical. Entrepreneur at very eary stage. System grand-slam technical success, business not so much. Despite being at the perfect opportunity point, product never got the traction and success it could have. Gradually, over the years, got into the people side and realized that's even more fun.
* [edit: Sorry, "impedence mismatch" is an engineering term (esp. electrical engineering). It describes the bad results you get when you connect two otherwise-good systems which have differing fundemantal properties. I will say that the comment is kind of pleasingly meta; its an excellent analogy (trust me!), but is totally inappropriate for an audience which is not familiar with the core term.]