Let's play math.
Imagine a world where there are 1000 people and only 2 unsolved problems left that could be solved only by tech. One problem is sexy and another one is boring.
Assuming that 90% of people are not interested or don't have ability to solve these problems (write software or build hardware technology), we have only 100 people left. Also, assuming that 80% of these 100 people are bad at execution (building something people don't want that much, moving slowly or giving up early).
So we have 20 people left with the highest chance to succeess.
Now as mentioned before, the first problem is sexy and easy to start, so it attracts many founders, while the other one is boring, hard and takes a lot of efforts to start.
So, 90% pick a sexy problem, while only 10% pick the boring and hard one.
That means 18 people choose to compete for a sexy problem while only 2 people choose the boring one.
If 75% of the market cap in a software category typically goes to the category leader, one person will take 75% of the market, while 17 other founders will have to compete for the remaining 25%. (1)
For the other two founders, who picked a boring problem, one founder takes 75% of the market, while the other takes 25% (2)
Now, let's get back to the real world, which is much more complex. This complexity makes it very difficult to understand which problems are truly worth solving and even how to recognize them.
So maybe...
If the best way to find problems that others are not willing to solve is by doing things others are unwilling to do, then that means we have to do those things.
If most founders want to work on pure IT problems, consider learning something about physics, electronics, agriculture, biotechnology, healthcare, manufacturing...
If most founders want to solve sexy problems, consider the boring ones.
If most founders want to solve easy problems, consider the hard ones.
If most founders want to copy each other, consider building something new.
If most founders want to build pure software companies, consider atoms or combination of bits and atoms.
While I can't tell you exactly what is the next big thing to do, I hope you got the idea.
Post scriptum:
(1) Most of these people are in trouble because they have some users and growth, so that makes them unwilling to step back and look for other problems to solve. Many times, this situation leads to zero sum games like raising a lot of money, spending a lot on marketing and PR, dumping prices to zero margins and etc. If someone already has existing users who need to be cared of, a lot of promises to employees and investors but eventually limited growth, it is very hard to get out of such situation.
(2) Also, if someone picks a boring problem, you will hardly hear about them in news. If someone picks a hard problem, they often don't need to do things other than solving that problem. (e.g marketing, ads)