Starting a company is mostly a decision to work on a problem before the route is obvious. The beginning is usually less dramatic than the stories written later: a small team, incomplete information, limited resources, and a lot of work that nobody sees.
I think the useful question is not whether an idea sounds ambitious. It is whether the problem matters enough to keep learning about it when the first version fails, customers disagree with your assumptions, or the original plan stops making sense.
It has become easier to register a company, build software, reach customers, and test an idea. None of that makes building a durable business easy. Distribution, judgement, hiring, cash discipline, and the ability to keep improving still matter. Convenience at the starting line should not be confused with ease over the whole journey.
The examples above are useful to me because their beginnings were imperfect. They are not proof that persistence guarantees success. They are reminders that limited resources, rejection, or a late start do not automatically settle the outcome. A difficult beginning is information, not a verdict.
A difficult beginning is information, not a verdict.