Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google to Invest $10B in India

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 349 posts

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#101

Post by bluGill »

imtringued wrote: post #54
mcny wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China PR makes me question a lot of things. For example, I’ve always been told that protectionism doesn’t work but with the great firewall it seems to work just fine in China PR. How do I explain it?

Protectionism only works in specific situations. For example you have a competent workforce and instead of making them work in a foreign country because that's where the multinational companies are, you introduce protectionist policies to keep them in your country. Getting to this point requires decades of focused efforts. You don't just introduce protectionism and get results automatically. Protectionism doesn't wor…

Protectionism doesn't work as well as more open policies. That doesn't mean that it doesn't work. For China the open policy includes things that are against their other goals and so isn't an option.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#102

Post by bluGill »

mcny wrote: post #40
notahacker wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works a lot better when your domestic market is a billion people and your local companies can feasibly improve their manufacturing capability fast enough to serve it adequately.

Why did India have to open its market to The Coca Cola Company and PepsiCo? I think Indian market is big enough. Moreover, we know the nature of these companies (there was a recent post where the comments said all the local brands dissolved into the multinational corporations once the multinationals entered the market. Is it simply that The Coca Cola Company and PepsiCo have better lobbying than Google/Amazon?

They don't have to, but it saves them the bother of learning to make their own.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#103

Post by kranner »

enitihas wrote: post #97
kranner wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not China, it is Chinese VC money. And no, I don't see that the Government can deal with Ambani so easily, or even antagonise him with impunity. Winning elections cost money and with the new electoral bonds, Ambani can easily fund the opposition in the next elections.

Yeah, the Chinese government is far more involved with it's companies than India with any of it's non nationalized companies. China got Jack Ma to spinoff Alipay from Alibaba, screwing the other shareholders badly. I don't think there is anyy big company in China without CCP members high up in the ranks. Ambani on the other hand, however powerful he may be, is certainly not a bigger threat than China. Companies being…

> Companies being Ambani owned, while worse than a competitive market, is still much better than being Tencent owned.

But better how, exactly?

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#104

Post by noisy_boy »

If Google has agreed to store user data locally/share it with the government in exchange for favourable policies/government turning a blind eye to its monopolistic position, its a very cheap price for what would be basically a win-win deal for both parties. The product i.e. extremely price-sensitive average Indian voter/consumer doesn't care much about privacy anyway.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#105

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #62
bamboozled wrote: post #4

Getting the feeling China has blown it and successful companies looking to expand into Asia are now looking at India instead. I also saw that Foxconn is looking to build Apple products in India now too.

India is a giant market, an investment of $10 billion is a rounding error.

No, it's not. All Indian startups combined raised a total of $14B last year (2019).

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#106

Post by chvid »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #84
chvid wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great firewall of China came because China wanted to police US social media operating in China but weren't able to. That it acted as a major enabler for China's own social media boom is (at least initially) an unintended side-effect.

It is certainly not unintended. Even without their will to control information for political purposes they would have not allowed such a key industry to be controlled by foreign players, and they have a strategy of creating a strong national industry in all sectors.

The ban of Facebook in 2009 was clearly a result of the Chinese authorities not being able to stop the spread of "misinformation" which they saw as a major factor in the Xinjiang riots of that year.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#107

Post by kranner »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #94
kranner wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not China, it is Chinese VC money. And no, I don't see that the Government can deal with Ambani so easily, or even antagonise him with impunity. Winning elections cost money and with the new electoral bonds, Ambani can easily fund the opposition in the next elections.

>> It's not China, it is Chinese VC money. No difference in China. Do what is good for the fatherland or your fiances, you personally and your family will suffer. >> I don't see that the Government can deal with Ambani so easily, or even antagonise him with impunity. So like many he's wayyy to powerful to deal with. But at least he is a local, not jeopardizing India's geopolitics. Just as he can control politicians,…

I think there's a qualitative difference in somebody merely very rich and a person like Ambani who is in the top 10 wealthiest people in the world. He is not quite a 'local' that the Government can just CBI-raid into intimidation like e.g. Prannoy Roy.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#108

Post by notahacker »

mcny wrote: post #40
notahacker wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works a lot better when your domestic market is a billion people and your local companies can feasibly improve their manufacturing capability fast enough to serve it adequately.

Why did India have to open its market to The Coca Cola Company and PepsiCo? I think Indian market is big enough. Moreover, we know the nature of these companies (there was a recent post where the comments said all the local brands dissolved into the multinational corporations once the multinationals entered the market. Is it simply that The Coca Cola Company and PepsiCo have better lobbying than Google/Amazon?

The Indian market is evidently big enough for homegrown cola brands (as in much smaller countries) but ultimately you have to question how much the Indian economy would benefit from special legislation to force its consumers to buy cola owned by a local oligarch rather than a foreign plc. Since the manufacturing and distribution jobs for the Indian supply chain are all in India either way and making sugary carbonated water isn't something which takes time to learn offering massive future opportunities, the argument for protecting fizzy drinks isn't very strong. Protecting your own industries can keep some domestic spend within the country, but it also tends to reduce foreign investment, lower the product quality/choice and deter exports, unless and until you start developing major strengths in the areas your govt protects.

India's present economic strengths and growth opportunities are in its ability to carry out work in the English language and IT sector for a wealthier multinational market: it's not a good bet especially not in the short run to sacrifice those opportunities to try to get Indians to mainly use Indian manufactures. Which is also why you have Google India and Amazon India. China didn't really have that same level of opportunity even if they'd pursued complete economic openness that's entirely alien to their political culture. And most countries smaller than China have been highly selective about which industries and resources they protect and for good reason.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#109

Post by bluGill »

m0zg wrote: post #46

Is there even a way for Google to invest in a high-corruption country like India without paying bribes (which would break US anti-bribery laws)? I'm pretty sure such an investment would be impossible in e.g. Russia, where many a hand needs to be greased before anything can happen.

Yes. In fact I suspect they haven't paid bribes because the US will arrest their CEO if they pay bribes. There are complex reasons exceptions, but in general us companies don't pay bribes unless someone's life is directly threatened. The same goes for UK companies, and I have no doubt all the other major countries in Europe have similar laws.

One of my companies competors get caught bribing. After investigation it was determined the company doesn't pay bribes and so this was a bad employee. The fines otherwise would have shut them down. This was used to justify sending me to anti bribery classes even though I don't do the type of work where I'm likely to have opportunities to bribe someone (or so I think?). I wasn't told who it was though.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#110

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

seemslegit wrote: post #38
bamboozled wrote: post #4

Getting the feeling China has blown it and successful companies looking to expand into Asia are now looking at India instead. I also saw that Foxconn is looking to build Apple products in India now too.

China hasn't "blown" anything - it is set to compete with US head to head on the world stage not with India over US investments.

I'd go further and say there's nobody that can compete with China at this stage. Sure, some US companies are doing tactical investments here and there, meanwhile the Chinese government is plowing billions into basic infra like railways, ports and roads across swathes of Asia and Africa, and then its companies follow.
Post reply on HN