> I do not agree with the assessment that Silicon valley startups compete based on better products. In fact, it's quite the opposite. All the popular ones you have heard of have taken large amounts of money and subsidize their products a great amount.
You didn't support your position at all that SV startups do not compete based on better products. That's a very large claim to make without supporting it at all.
Taking on large amounts of venture capital has no inherent correlation such that the product must invert on quality to the amount being raised. If that were the case, Airbnb would be an entirely unusable product, as would Uber. So far those products have functioned extraordinarily well, such that a mass-audience of average users has easily adopted them at warp speed. Uber overtook the entire US taxi industry in three years, if their product wasn't good that would have been impossible.
> If you are a less funded startup, it is impossible to complete in such a scenario. In fact, you absolutely have to get lots of funding first, you have no choice.
You're criticizing Silicon Valley startups for supposedly relying on large amounts of money to compete, then proclaiming that you can't compete without getting tons of funding first. You're outright stating that you can't compete on quality of product alone, then you hold it against Silicon Valley in your theory that companies there refuse to set themselves up for failure by taking on a lot less venture capital.