But if the idea is easy to implement than anyone will be able to copy that idea and the value will tend to zero.
My strategy is the opposite - take ideas that are often simple to state but whose execution is so complex as to tax the limits of the human mind. Then if I succeed I shouldn't have to worry much about competition (at least for a couple of years).
Easy to implement ideas are easy to copy, but that doesn't necessarily mean the value of the idea will tend to zero. See Woot, Groupon, Craigslist, etc. There are network effects and first mover advantages that help the first to implement an idea and gain traction.
I would say your strategy follows my point. In your case, the ideas that are often simple to state aren't valuable. The value is all in the execution.
I often wonder why the software and internet businesses seem so strongly winner take all, where the winner is most typically not the first but the best (in a sense measured by the market) to execute an idea (ie. Microsoft, Google, Facebook). It seems like the classical economic view of competitive markets is becoming more and more of a fantasy world.
Yeah, it's interesting. The reasons vary for each company and books could probably be written for each one. A key factor is network effects. Read up on network effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
"In economics and business, a network effect (also called network externality) is the effect that one user of a good or service has on the value of that product to other people. When network effect is present, the value of a product or service increases as more people use it."
Not just internet and software businesses, railroads, telephone networks, and financial markets are other businesses that are impacted by network effects.
My strategy is the opposite - take ideas that are often simple to state but whose execution is so complex as to tax the limits of the human mind. Then if I succeed I shouldn't have to worry much about competition (at least for a couple of years).