The "Type 1" of the market assessment articles resides in a different blog.
As of May 2013 I do not know, if the idea presented here (the "Type 2") has anything to do with reality, i.e. how far it is from an objective reality, but it is a place to start.
The idea is that if one tries to sell product X that solves problem Y, then the market does not exist, unless the target audience is already spending money on solving the problem Y and the product X helps to solve the problem Y more cheaply or allows to solve "more problem Y" for the same amount of money or, maybe, allows to solve "same amount of problem Y" for the same amount of money, but with less amount of unwanted side-effects.
For example, there are a lot of scientists, who would love to do all sorts of awesome and fun stuff, but they do not spend practically anything, which means that the market that they form is really slim. Same thing with some small business owners: they would love to have all sorts of things, software, hardware, etc. but since they do not spend anything on solving those problems, there's no market.
The situation might be generalized by stating that all new projects that provide something totally new, change the game significantly, are without a market and development of brand new, game-changing, technologies can take place only as a volunteer effort or as a sub-project of some project that tries to provide a solution to problem Y that the target audience already spends money on. An example: open-source projects, Linux, web software frameworks, pharmaceuticals, even the technological innovation of the war industry.
The pharmaceutical industry is an interesting one. They're like devil's advocates with an honest and novel cause: give part of Your soul to us by working for us (through working for paying for the medicines) or die. May be that's what it takes to get some money for anything new. After all, there is a saying that wars are the drivers of technological innovation (as opposed to juridical "innovation" of peacetime).