I love when people tell me that they have the "next big idea," but that they can't disclose it. I lose interest the second someone tells me that, because if it were truly a great idea, they would instead be implementing it. If you have a 'great idea' that you don't know how to implement, it's probably not that great of an idea, because you inherently lack the skills to discover its weaknesses.

So, let's see: I have a 'great idea'. One pill taken once that will cure any cancer. World shaking idea!

This example clarifies this whole thread: The need to cure cancer is obvious. So is the desirability of such a one pill. Now let's set aside the obvious. The challenge is how to make that pill. The 'idea' with meaning, then, is how to make this pill.

If someone does know how to make the pill, then they definitely should not tell anyone about it without good legal advice, rock solid NDAs, etc.

But part of what makes this thread a mess is that at present the HN context of information technology entrepreneurship just assumes that, with current computing, the part analogous to finding the pill is trivial and the only challenge is identifying that people would like to have such a pill. This situation won't last very long!

I signed plenty of NDA's only to hear a really crappy idea. And even if the idea was nice, it would be nearly impossible to execute. Like having some original-ish idea like square is nice, but takes millions to execute. If you don't have the means to get to those millions, you can have the idea but it doesn't really matter. Someone who does have that access will win.

You are making a common but fundamental and potentially very costly mistake: You are looking for a needle in a haystack. Then you are drawing conclusions about the needle from the hay you do see and not the needle you don't.

It may be that for the needle, you will have to sign an NDA and, then, be very glad you did.

We're looking for needles, guys.

We can grab some hay and just hope we find a needle there.

Or we can try some solid means to find and/or create needles. Examples? Sure, look at the last 70 years of the US DoD. E.g., they bet on just the 'idea', just on paper, for, for just a short list, the proximity fuse, the atom bomb, the turbojet engine (GE once told me that the first prototype for any jet engine costs > $100 million), the engines for the SR-71 (both a turbojet and a ram jet), the SR-71, the Navy version of the GPS, the F-117, and much more. They start with just paper, and the failure rate from there on is surprisingly small. The US DoD can evaluate far out projects just on paper with high reliability. I almost forgot, the Internet.

It was DoD, the CIA, and NASA that mostly got Silicon Valley going. Now just what is it about how to evaluate projects that got Silicon Valley going that Silicon Valley now doesn't understand?

May I have the envelope, please? Here it is: DoD does evaluations with people with both technical and military competence, and Silicon Valley uses marketing, 'biz dev', Wall Street financial analysis, management consultant people. Hmm ....

No: Your evidence does not lead to your conclusion.

You are working with your "a lot of people" and drawing a conclusion about business success in, since this is HN, information technology entrepreneurship. Here's where you get off track: Something under 1% of the people with such 'ideas' achieve success. Or, what fraction of the people can be in the upper 1%?

So, the evidence that would be needed would be the role of ideas for that upper 1% or less.

As I wrote elsewhere on this thread, what is being assumed here about an 'idea' is just some short description of a 'cutomer need' to be met by, say, a new Web site, say, paper napkins with personalized printing ordered on a Web site and delivered via FedEx. Then, sure, execution is everything.

What is being missed, however, is old, traditional, and rock solid: Take a problem millions of people want solved, or that a few people want very, very much to have solved, find a solution, and then execute. Here the implication is that, because the problem has not been solved yet, finding the solution, the 'idea', is challenging. Then commonly people would protect the idea with a patent.

If the idea was really good, then the execution should be routine. Examples? Business history is awash in them.

I say again: Bad ideas are easy and, then, execution is everything and likely difficult. Good ideas are likely difficult and then execution can be routine.