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

231–240 of 349 posts

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#231

Post by psds2 »

questionfor wrote: post #212
kamaal wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You would tell me "if I am able to make it to the movie tonight I will leave you a missed call around 2pm" and then neither party pays for a telephone call or sms.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#232

Post by starfallg »

Aperocky wrote: post #219
starfallg wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Simply put, there is not enough wealth inside China to sustain growth with such a large population.

Having a large population doesn't automatically result in a viable consumption based economy.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#233

Post by aembleton »

OJFord wrote: post #39

How do I read a Techcrunch article without going through guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers first? Here's the Times of India, anyway: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/google-to...

> How do I read a Techcrunch article without going through guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers first?

Use Outline: https://outline.com/zWtBay

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#234

Post by TLightful »

mycodebreaks wrote: post #225
viklove wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do not ignore cultural differences. If you see such an activity as a job, then you would arrive at a conclusion like yours. In India, it's common for hosts to serve food as a sign of respect to their guests. Close friends and family of hosts also join. This only showed the closeness of the relationships among Mukesh and other stars. Seeing it as a subservient act isn't accurate, no big star would sign up if it were s…

This is correct. I'm not Indian but my wife is and I've observed it many times as an insider "outsider".

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#235

Post by freyr »

izacus wrote: post #194
OJFord wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I suppose you voluntarily pay more tax than you need to?

"He" is not a for-profit corporation, but a human person. Corporations aren't people no matter how much dollars go into PR efforts to tell people otherwise. As such, them not paying their part to the society is damaging no matter how many personal appeals you do. Please stop humanizing corporations to make them get away with not paying their part.

It seems like the point is that we’d be naive to expect a corporation, presumably governed by rational actors working to maximize profits, to pay more taxes than the minimum.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#236

Post by sbmthakur »

kranner wrote: post #218
sbmthakur wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Their influence in India is directly proportional to the money they put in the Indian economy, which basically means the influence exercised by the Chinese government. The lesser the Chinese influence, the better it is considering the current state of India-China relations. Ambani's money is definitely not fueling a known Indian adversary.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#237

Post by buran77 »

eldaisfish wrote: post #185
buran77 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it seems they've picked a favorite and decided ? It doesn't look like this to me. India's population is within 50 million of China but has double the growth rate. Even if the GDP per capita (nominal or PPP) is about half of that of China, it still has a huge potential as a market and it never received enough attention. Companies are starting to see that potential now. We shouldn't anthropomorphize company decisions…

>India's population is within 50 million of China but has double the growth rate. What on earth are you talking about? India's growth rate in the past decade is nowhere comparable to China's. Even if you argue that China cooks their books, you cannot discount the volume and value of trade that China does with numerous other countries. http://statisticstimes.com/economy/china-vs-india-economy.ph... >it still has a hug…

> India's population is within 50 million of China but has double the growth rate.

The growth rate refers to the population.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#239

Post by hcnews »

flak48 wrote: post #230
xxpor wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random language usage question: in India, if someone is referred to as a billionaire, would that be in terms of rupees or dollars? (1 billion INR is ~13.3 million USD) Or does it essentially never come up because a typical Indian would use lakh/crore instead? Is there's something like a "lakh croreaire"?

> Or does it essentially never come up because a typical Indian would use lakh/crore instead? Exactly. USD is almost always implied when million/billion is used

Yeah, for millionaire/billionaire the definition shifts to the western one. Mukesh was/is also top 10 richest globally I believe.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#240

Post by vghaisas »

xxpor wrote: post #228
screye wrote: 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…

Random language usage question: in India, if someone is referred to as a billionaire, would that be in terms of rupees or dollars? (1 billion INR is ~13.3 million USD) Or does it essentially never come up because a typical Indian would use lakh/crore instead? Is there's something like a "lakh croreaire"?

Indians use "crorepati" for someone with a crore rupees. Interestingly, the Indian equivalent of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" is "Kaun Banega Crorepati" (who will become a crorepati).

As for millionaire/billionaire, imo it's hard to tell but on HN I would infer USD. (Amitabh Bachchan's net worth is ~$400M based on a quick search.)

Post reply on HN