I assume things are similar in other large tech companies.
I'll posit that the real problem with big companies is the opposite: the price of failure is mild (you get reassigned to another team and get to do more cool stuff) and the benefits of success are also mild (you might get a promotion and an iPad or something). When your actions have little effect on the outcome, your actions tend to regress to the mean. In a startup, where failure means you starve and success means you never have to work again, you have a much bigger incentive to go the extra distance.
Startups given the market for engineers in particular actually only have a temporal starvation penalty. It's not like they can't get another job after they fail.
Doing this in a large company might lead to even more innovative products because startups are so under-resourced and governed by promises to investors that they risk becoming myopic and less agile.
(Serious question - what I have seen is that the team lead gets bumped up one notch and gets to try on a larger scale).
I know of at least one team that came up with something major that asked for their compensation to be tied to their product success having their idea moved to another team because "they should do it for IBM purely". Of course that product failed for lack of vision and focus.