They aren't incapable of it, they do it too. They just have different priorities. A company's goal is to grow as large as possible. They want to shut out competition.
Both of those reasons explain why they acquire start-ups -- one, to feed the beast. Two, to stop any threat to their gluttonous expansion.
Microsoft's core is still Windows, Word, and Excel. Google's is still the search they started with when they were a start-up (every big company was once a start-up), not any of the start-ups they've since acquired. The core products pay the bills; the rest is filling up the cracks.
The numbers game is of crucial importance because large companies externalize the cost of the selection process. Google will pay a little for dedicated people and a lot for a big audience to sell ads to. Everyone's just still stuck on the old paradigm of either some time-wasting interview process ("what are you interviewing for?" "A job!" "To do what?" "I don't know exactly!") or buying a start-up with a self-selected people/problem combination that already seems to work.
> Why doesn't intense determination to develop something great qualify as a methodology?
I think we're getting a little carried away here with hyperbole. There are few "great" ones, that's not a methodology, although self-deception might qualify. Steve Jobs had an intense determination to develop something great -- the Mac. Hardly anyone falls into that category. Most start-ups now are excited kids who mainly want to make some quick bucks.
And I note the Mac was created BY a gigantic company, by someone who was already rich (and a bunch of engineers on minimum salary -- hey, it's Jobs). It's WHO, not WHERE, and I note design-by-committee-with-endless-meetings has been recognized as a mistake for a long time (Apple III).
And yes, the code does matter.
> Can you spot the contradiction?
No, it's 5 am, I'm up because my neighbor was crashing around, I don't even know what I'm writing. I seem to be talking myself into agreeing with PG.
You seem to believe a startup's success is a game of pure chance. Of course there's an element of luck in any complicated process, but the startup game is survival of the fittest. The number of failed runners doesn't detract from the results of the winners.
> ...hallmark of pseudoscience, so if we're going to trumpet the winners let's compare that to the vastly larger deadpool
The statistical odds are only really interesting in an academic context. The fact is that the startup process is able to do what big companies are simply incapable of doing. Even with virtually unlimited selection of the top people in the world and more money than some countries. This is the crux of my point.
> ...once again we're back to start-ups being an advertisement of who's dedicated rather than a superior development methodology.
Developing great new stuff is not about creating the most amazing source code. It's about the results of the work. Intense dedication is certainly a huge factor in creating great stuff and it's something most employees of big companies lack and successful startups have. Why doesn't intense determination to develop something great qualify as a methodology? Sounds like one to me.
> ...some of those will be a lot better than others. It's a numbers game.
Can you spot the contradiction?