I don't think the poster of your parent comment would disagree with your explanation of the how things are; they're only saying that's not how it should be.
If we lived in a just meritocracy, people who created millions of dollars in value with their code would be compensated with millions of dollars, but this is rarely, if ever, the case.
As a counterpoint: people don't create millions of dollars in value in a vacuum.
Somebody (usually several somebodies) took the chance to create a support structure to enable said person to create the millions of dollars in value.
How much of the value should go to the value creator and how much to the enabler with the capital (and the vision to use it in that way instead of spending it on something else) is a very interesting question that has been tackled for a long time, particularly from Marx onwards.
> Somebody (usually several somebodies) took the chance to create a support structure to enable said person to create the millions of dollars in value.
A tech company contains a lot of structure, and very little of that is actually geared toward enabling anyone to create millions of dollars of value. A large portion of that structure exists to enable the management of a company to justify taking in large profits. It's should surprise no one that those creating the structure would create it in a way that benefits them.
I know a few people who work at a tech cooperative, which has mostly developers with 1 secretary who manages benefits/taxes/etc. and 1 "business liaison" who manages customer communication. They've created millions of dollars of value without most of the structure, and it's no coincidence that they're all set to retire in their late 30s.
If we lived in a just meritocracy, people who created millions of dollars in value with their code would be compensated with millions of dollars, but this is rarely, if ever, the case.