Tech companies with a plethora of employees take months to come up with working startup prototypes, while some indie makers manage to launch minimum viable products in less than a month, sometimes in a single day.
In a competitive sector where your startup's iteration speed is key, and as a young tech entrepreneur, I can't help but feel skeptical about these so-called venture studios whose business models lie in-between that of a web agency, a venture capitalist, and a tech consultant.
A venture studio either invests time and resources in a startup against company shares or gets paid a flat fee. It implies 1) a selection of the client according to their return-on-investment estimates (can it work?) or 2) that the startup already received external funding.
In other words, the startup founder has to wait months for her solution to be ready—because, obviously, a venture studio has a portfolio of startups to manage and can't focus solely on a single project hoping to earn money—, and she still needs funds to make the ROI interesting to the studio or simply to pay upfront for the development services.
Except if you're already a crazy rich startup founder, I don't think this is a smart way to go about building your minimum likable product.
You'd need the time-to-market—from idea to product launch—to be much lower to become an interesting option. A month, at most. This is where automation, productized services, and the no-code movement can shine bright by bringing the costs and the development time down. In this regard, the tech industry is way behind, but I don't think it's going to take long before launching a company becomes as common as going to college. The tide is turning, slowly but surely.