You don't understand. Ideas are cheap the way DNA is cheap. It is extremely inexpensive to generate one million different strands of DNA. What is expensive is to test them all and figure out which one, if any, might code for something worth having.<p>If you think for a while, you'll very likely think of a better idea. The problem is that you'll also think of 100 or 1000 not-so-good ideas at the same time, and you have to decide which ideas to keep and which to throw away, and you'll probably guess wrong. It's the <i>testing</i> that is not cheap, and that we wish to make as cheap as possible.
I honestly want to challenge you to define the term "better." Is "better" measured by the degree of "feasible execution," "profitability," "match to consumer needs" or a combination of those?<p>Other than that, here are my thoughts<p>1) Ideas aren't cheap. Not good/executable ideas anyways. Those ideas are sparked by work, experience, time invested into research, fostering a good environment that encourages ideas/competition.<p>I'm sure you can ask a 5 year old on his ideas on how to end world hunger and compare that of someone who is 30 or 40 something. Both ideas were cheap, but who's is better?<p>2) As mentioned by someone else here, not all ideas are executable or worth executing.<p>3) Personality traits. Not everyone find pleasure in thinking, have you had a friend who brushed you off every time you bring up an ideas? In addition there are many internal and external factors that help create or hinder ideas such as level of conformity at the work place, tolerance to risk etc
I really do not buy the oft repeated maxim that ideas are cheap. I think one reason for this thinking is because unless an idea is converted to an actual product there is no way to tell if it is good. But just because we can't judge whether an idea is good - does not mean ideas are cheap and worthless either. I think this notion was made popular by investors and VCs, and it makes sense in their cases - as they make nothing from mere ideas - only from products that sell. Outside the domain of startups and VCs, ideas are very precious indeed - just ask scientists who work on ideas that can create brand new industries. Quantum physics was just an idea with equations - but we would not have any of modern electronics, lasers, computers or mobile phones. Which brings us to tbe second part of your question - why can't we think of better ones. My theory is that the human brain is wired to perceive what exists and act on it, whereas innovation requires perceving what does not exist and seeing the gaps. It is much harder for the human brain to focus on this. Which is why it is easier to improve upon what already exists than it is to create a brand new product.
I like to think if it as a multiplier:<p>idea * execution = outcome<p>idea * 0 = 0. "Ideas are worthless without execution"<p>1 * execution = execution. "with hard work, any decent idea can succeed"<p>100 * execution = something amazing. "great ideas can change the world"
When you are focused on "the idea" you cannot see the forest for the trees. When you are more familiar with the execution and what it takes to go from idea to successful product you realize that the idea is a smaller part of the equation then you originally thought.<p>Do you think that great companies like Netflix, Amazon or facebook are really doing anything revolutionary from the idea stand point? A movie rental chain, a department store and party line. They are simple everyday things that are worked upon very hard for years until they finally become a success.<p>I am in the opposite position. So many "good enough" ideas that is is hard to choose which one I want to be married to for the next 3 to 5 years.
Who says we haven't? We're blissfully unaware of most of human thought because it isn't acted on in such as way that we become aware of its existence. YC is a great example of this, to a certain extent PG started it because there was no possible way for him to carry out every idea he came up with, so he created an environment where he can involve himself with other people who have ideas that he's had or likes. I'm not entirely behind the "ideas are worthless" camp. They're worth something (after all, you do have to execute on SOMETHING that had to be thought of prior to), but most of a company's value is still derived from the fruition of its core idea.
This is a reaction to my current frustration. My ex-partner said ideas are only worth 2%, technology 5% and implementation 93%. But he wants to know if he take the idea and continue to work on it on his own.<p>So I said <i>"If ideas are so cheap, why don't you think of a better one?"</i> <crickets><p>It's getting to the point where people say it without thinking.
Because how is something better when "better" is just an adjective and not something you created, tested and executed ? Going to the moon is an idea, executing the moon landing is a million ideas all put together in the correct order. Different is not always better. One bad idea, 999 999 good ideas and then you explode and die, consistently.
Creativity is free, but having mental models, abilities to express, experience and domain knowledge is expensive and hard-won. If you don't have the latter, the former (creativity) will not produce good ideas that fit and evolve the latter, to result in success and wealth. Not everyone has the former, and not everyone has the latter.
I think the reason why people consider ideas cheap is if it's just an idea. If the idea is the solution to the problem then that's what makes it a good one. Then again that's just my interpretation of the large amount of seemingly-good startup advice on the internet. It also just makes sense.
I think part of it is a bias against solo founders. We simply don't hear of many solo successes, but I'd venture that's where a lot of idea-mill work happens.