Coming from a pure math background, I'm astounded at how people seem to think they're so amazing and wonderful because they've made money on their iPhone apps, or whatever.
Business metrics is the operational standard for private companies outside their R&D divisions. So it isn't surprising [or really even unexpected] that ends up being a point of comparison/discussion.
People seem to have this attitude from me because I measure my explanations in business metrics. [e.g. Gross revenue, availability, time savings]
So that is how I measure things in software development. If measuring success in business, in business metrics is "arrogance"...I'm really not sure what to tell you other than maybe you'd be better off doing research?
I know this isn't really supportive but generally the people with the attitude that "measuring things in business metrics == arrogance" tend to be the sort that will turn around and think that I'm a terrible programmer because I didn't use Interesting Algorithm X. I've literally not met a single a programmer who complains about measuring competency in business metrics who doesn't exhibit that behavior. So apologies if I'm prejudging you.
I've encountered two types of interviewers:
The business metric types [which measure success purely on business metrics and their interview processes is geared towards "How do you do X? But cheaper and as highly available."]
The "HEY LOOK AT ME I CODE NEAT ALGORITHMS ON WHITEBOARDS" types that think a large body of memorized knowledge is the key that solves all problems.
Generally, I've noticed that Group A thinks Group B is arrogant and vice versa.
Disclaimer: I've seen a consistent pattern where every I get offers from 100% of Group A, while Group B almost universally rejects me. So it could just be my own biases talking. However, if I can write highly available systems that move millions of dollars of goods [and does more reliably than at least two groups that I know hold Group B style beliefs]...I'm not sure how I can conclude anything other than Group B is wrong.