I disagree with that part of your statement. Take for example, Dropbox. The main difference between Dropbox and previous attempts was not timing, but rather execution.
Using a term like execution to describe why someone is successful is tautological and IMO meaningless.
What's more important is to figure out what the actual execution consisted of.
For instance it's speculated that one of the reasons why Dropbox got a lot of cover was that they where Mac based rather than Windows based.
Since a lot of tech-journalists have Macs it was easier for them to try out and write about it:
"My earlier version of this post was about how Syncplicity and Dropbox competed for mindshare back in 2008 when both companies launched. My initial Quora post was about some of the reasons why, around our respective launches, Dropbox was able to get more attention. 3 years ago, the press and early tech adopters were starting to fall in love with Mac products. The average consumer didn't have a Mac, but they were hot amongst influencers. Having a Windows-only product dramatically limited the attention Syncplicity received from the press. Today, I can't imagine launching a desktop app without Mac support. When we started developing Syncplicity, it wasn't obvious that Mac support was critical for press attention. Today both companies have Mac clients."
I understand what you are saying, but as the saying goes: "a little inaccuracy saves a lot of explanation." Similarly here, I use the term execution to refer to the set of features they chose which led to success. I did not feel that it was vital to the point I was trying to make to specify which features specifically.
> If there was some other factor why a venture failed and it wasn't timing then it does not even count
Thats a misleading idea because it suggests that execution and timing are separable. Who is to say that some company failed because the timing was wrong or because their execution was bad? Furthermore, couldnt it be both? As Drew Houston said, he had to convince people that he was solving a problem that they didnt even know that they had! What I am trying to show here is that Drew created his market, he didnt wait for the right time when people had this problem that they so desperately needed solved. He made them realize it himself. Chalking things up to just timing belittles the efforts put forth by the founders.
I must disagree, in light of ChuckMcM's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5592391). Though saying "timing is everything" may belittle the efforts of the founders who succeeded, saying "execution is everything" gives the successful founders too much credit, and the researchers, the also-rans, and the market too little.
I disagree with that part of your statement. Take for example, Dropbox. The main difference between Dropbox and previous attempts was not timing, but rather execution.