Bootstrapping versus Venture Capital

This is very much a function of the type of product or service you're building, the market you're targeting, how quickly you expect (or want) the company to grow, and its total upside potential.  It's also a function of the type of company *you* want to build.  Since there are so many variables here, it's very hard to generalize.  If you're starting a company that is more of a "lifestyle" company, e.g., one that probably won't see a "hockey-stick" growth curve into millions in the first few years, then you're pretty-much stuck with bootstrapping, simply because you will have a difficult time finding an investor who will invest in a company with minimal upside for him/her, plus investors like to see clear exits.  But, sometimes there's nothing wrong with bootstrapping...you get to keep most of the company (instead of giving much of it away to investors) and you get to run it the way you want to (instead of being run by the investors via the Board).  On the other hand, if your product/service is one that must get out on the market fast to "catch that wave," or its a land-grab, then going the slow-growth route will most likely kill the company.

These days, you need to be capital-efficient

Back in the 90's, VCs would put millions of dollars in a high-tech start-up, and patiently wait several years for the start-up to build its hardware product (software is a different story).  If the product was successful, everyone won, and many did.  It's not that way anymore for most investments.  Unless you truly have a blockbuster hardware product, these days your start-up needs to be capital-efficient:  less money has to go farther, and the point in time when your start-up either gets springboarded to the next level or gets its plug pulled is shorter.  Keep that in mind when developing your funding strategy and product roll-out strategy.