The difference is that originally there was a higher likelihood of trying out a Google product than a random startup's. Now that equation is flipped- I'd rather try a random startup's product than a Google one- at least the startup is going to live and die on making that product a success.

Google? It has to be a massive world spanning success or its a guaranteed goner.

> at least the startup is going to live and die on making that product a success.

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

Whether a product is being funded by Google or a VC, I'd argue they have a similar desire to make money, or else cut funding.

If a product looks like a failure, the startup isn't going to keep it going or try harder -- the VC's will want to cut their losses.

I honestly don't think there's much of a difference at all. It's the same types of executive tech people making the decisions at the end of the day no matter if it's at a VC or a Megacorp.

A VC-funded startup needs to be a runaway success. A million dollar idea isn't even going to get funding in the valley.

I, not sure if absolute numbers are worth looking at. What are the %s.

I thought that would be understood implicitly - how many google products do you know, maybe 10 to 20? That’s a < 10% success rate, pretty comparable to startups in general.

Startups don't usually have the backing of unlimited funds and warm bodies so it isn't really a fair comparison to make.