I don't get it. Do you suggest that Google or big players make things better than anyone else? Or other way around, small startups cannot make good products? I believe if it was so then only companies starting with 1000+ people could do anything useful, small startups were doomed to fail, also big player could never do wrong. Sounds a bit simplistic and contrary to countless examples from life.

In the specific space of machine learning in life-critical applications, I generally prefer product from established companies with reputation to sub-1000 startups.

The incentives to cut corners and go to market are much higher for small startups with short runways. I don't want corners cut when lives are on the line.

"I don't want corners cut when lives are on the line"

...still not sure if you are talking about the (heavily) cost optimising conglomerates or not....if we agree to constrain the topic to finances leaving out innovative ideas, ethics, integrity, trustworthiness, etc. where conglomerates may be loose with standards.

Also do you know how Apple and Google started? (I hoped the suggestion will get through without stating the obvious, but it did not)

This is not a binary choice nor a necessety.