I understand the concept of turning a "problem" solution into a business, but there are two issues with that as far as I see. Firstly, questioning if it is really a problem, like you mentioned and secondly does it need to be fixed, and this I think points to your second point about something being unique or if it is of value.
> Without competition, you also cannot get an honest assessment of where you stand.
I don't think a company like Uber, was fixing a problem, they made a better solution and competed. So yes, agreed that competition can be good. Another way to look at it is, if there is no competition, then there may be no problem.
The issue the author has is saturation, I think. No matter what if you are solving a "problem" in a space with no "competition" and you are winning that battle, then multiple other people are going to come along and compete.
Unique solutions for unique problems which are profitable are rare, challenging, often expensive to develop etc. Take an existing idea and make it better (hmmm Apple?), you are more likely to be successful in a tested market.
On the other hand, lots of people are solving problems which are not real.
I agree that finding a unique problem is possible, but it is more probable that you are missing something.
https://mastersofscale.com/peter-thiel-escape-the-competitio...
It's extremely rare to find a widely spread problem with zero pre-existing solutions or competitors in that field.
The problem here is making sure that you are solving a real problem at all.
There are many companies out there doing something unique, but that is because what they are doing has limited/no value. Juicero comes to mind.
Without competition, you also cannot get an honest assessment of where you stand.