[the_watcher]

> I am going to make a guess that many of the strongest startups will be produced from this procedure.

What's your definition of "strongest"? In terms of success measured by exit size, it's empirically untrue. Perhaps if you are measuring by failure rate, but even then, I doubt it.

[dlo]

Re: "empirically untrue," my guess is about the future, for which there is no data, so I don't think it can be "empirically untrue." If you figured out a way to collect data from the future, I am very interested!

FWIW, it can't be empirically true either. :-)

What I am saying is that starting off one's journey by taking money or going through an accelerator enters you into an efficient machine for building a startup in a specific way.

From what I have observed, entering this path often traps founders into thinking this is the one true way to build a startup. In reality, the paths to product-market fit are unknown. You often discover them through serendipity. Being rigid can cause you to miss them.

I am not saying a startup should never take money. Once a startup has discovered their magic, i.e. achieved product-market fit, then taking money and using it to scale is the right way to go.

[dlo]

To actually answer your question, I do not think the next Google will have gone through an accelerator. Maybe they will take funding at some point in their lifetime, but their success will not be owed to entering a rigid assembly line for startups.