Live data from Hacker News

Google to Invest $10B in India

techcrunch.com

211–220 of 349 posts

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think GP meant that at least very with Ambani, the money stays in India and is circulated inside the country. The services are provided to Indians, we are paid to do the work, and we spend it in India. It's better because the wealth of the country isn't leaking away, or at least leaking slower.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#212
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indian telecom is now a classic oligopoly, far from our heady days as one of the most insanely competitive telecom markets.

Well Indian customer is always a price conscious one though. Like it or not, we are that way. Remember those days people used to make pre agreed arrangements, and just make the communication acknowledgements though missed calls? So eventually if you want to be profitable and sell more services, you have to offer a good price. It's just the way it is. I even know people who look at fares and then decide if they want t…

> Remember those days people used to make pre agreed arrangements, and just make the communication acknowledgements though missed calls?

Can you elaborate how did that work? I never heard about this method

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#213
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the person is connected with both the parties. so may be opposition does not dare to mention him. but i personally feel he is lesser evil, especially if you look at the penetration Chinese products and venture money have made in India.

How is Chinese venture money more evil than Ambani owning everything?

Chinese venture firms are subject to PRC's National Intelligence Law, which requires all Chinese organisations to support, co-operate with and collaborate in national intelligence work.

I don't think Ambani has such an obligation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#214
post #209
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mukhesh Ambani who's got a good connect with the current ruling Government To be fair, Mukesh has got good connections everywhere. He is India's most powerful person. Amitabh and the Shahrukh (some of the world's richest actors, both half billionaires) both volunteered as servers at his daughters wedding as a show of appreciation. If a man can command the most powerful of his country to such level of willful subser…

> volunteered as servers at his daughters wedding ... subservience I don't know about you, but when I hear "working as a server at a wedding attended by many powerful people", I don't think "subservience", I think "unique opportunity to make connections, and to potentially snoop insider information."

You must not know of Amitabh and the Shahrukh -- they're not some smalltime actors that need to get a leg up. This would be like Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt offering to be servers at Jeff Bezos' daughters wedding. It's absurdly subservient.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#215

China is aging. China population https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2020/ vs India population https://www.populationpyramid.net/india/2020/ China will never develop a consumption based economy with its aging population. It takes Europe, decades for its population to age. It only take Japan 25 years to age like Europe and China's one child policy is not helping and its on track to age like Japan. It's only a logi…

Demographics are a curse for India like it is for China due to their sheer scale. The reason why China has trouble transitioning into consumption economy is because after 30 years of incredible growth, 600M people still subsist on poverty level income. Why? Because at it's peak, manufacturing "only" employed about 1/3 of the country since 1/3 essentially maxed global demand. This is despite massively exploiting the model that made Japan, South Korea, Taiwan rich, and basically surpassing these countries in pretty much every industry except semiconductors. Populous countries has to do proportionally more to to meet it's peoples needs. Sometimes seemingly impossibly more^.

The next 20-30 years is going to be India's peak demographic dividend phase assuming population stabilizes. While there's going to many positive developments, much of it will be squandered simply because India will take ~30 years of incremental growth to get to where China is today, unless it can execute central planning better than the CCP. Otherwise they're left with a bunch of discontent and destructive youth which is much more dangerous than China's curse of unproductive elderly. Growth will also be undermined by automation, which has eliminated entire high employment manufacturing opportunities, while increase in industrial robots is helping existing manufacturing countries retain their base, i.e. China is installing 150k industrial robots per year (3x more than 2nd place) and rapidly climbing the robots per 10k employee metric (Korean leads with 700, China 100, India 5). Further China has massive influence on where manufacturing logistics, they are in a position to pick winners and losers if they ever want to weaponize export controls. And western companies will think twice about repeating practices that allowed China to grew that big in the first place. Development is going to be spread across South Asia, ASEAN, India will not be in a place to capture as much of the pies as China did. I do think it's about time India shapes up and make an concerted effort to develop, but she has accrued so many nerfs for simply waiting too long. It's overdue, but in many ways it's already too late.

^Keep in mind development, especially for a massive potential powers like India is much more involved. There's a reason US pivoted to undermine China after Made in China 2025 was announced. These are industries essential to self-sufficiency AND climbing out of middle income trap, but simultaneously erode US/Western lead. India will face the same resistance if she ever reaches that far, otherwise all she'll ever be is farmers and widget makers. Hegemony will always cap the ambition of potential rivals. It's different for smaller countries are allowed to grow rich, often with support, because they will never be threats. It's why India & China has their own nuclear and space program. Why China expends vast resources for indigenous military. Once India grows too fast, it will be kneecapped by US and China. Like US kneecapped Japan and China. That's the way it goes.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

India probably has a rather small startup scene, that is not much of an argument.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#218
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Chinese venture money more evil than Ambani owning everything?

Chinese venture firms are subject to PRC's National Intelligence Law, which requires all Chinese organisations to support, co-operate with and collaborate in national intelligence work. I don't think Ambani has such an obligation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law

That doesn’t address why Chinese money is less desirable than Ambani’s money.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

China is an heavily export oriented economy losing access to the markets of the advanced economies day-by-day. Their play is to pivot into a consumer market before their foreign reserves eventually dries up, but that's hindered by the large population.

> pivot into a consumer market

> hindered by the large population.

This just doesn't make any sense.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think GP meant that at least very with Ambani, the money stays in India and is circulated inside the country. The services are provided to Indians, we are paid to do the work, and we spend it in India. It's better because the wealth of the country isn't leaking away, or at least leaking slower.

Services provided, persons employed, employees paid etc is all the same whether Ambani owns the shares or Chinese VCs do. Ambani would no more share his profits with other Indians than Chinese VCs would. Both would be subject to the same taxes on income earned in India. Maybe Ambani reinvests some of his profits in India; but for all we know he might choose to do so outside India.
Post reply on HN