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

341–349 of 349 posts

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#341

Post by dhanvantharim1 »

intended wrote: post #181
_jgdh wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They'll drop it as soon as something cheaper comes around. My bet - nothing cheaper comes along. Because Reliance's biggest competitive advantage is close links with the government, regardless of the party in power. A hypothetical competitor would find it difficult to get spectrum allocated, have trouble with land usage rights, tax issues like Vodafone had. There is a reason foreign companies set up joint ventures…

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

Most telecoms in the world are,In Canada Bell Canada,Telus and Rogers own almost 90% of the market. When Verizon tried to enter the market the big three lobbied so hard against Verizon, even Verizon with all its capitol could not get in to Canadian.In the end customers in Canada are still paying very high fees for data plans anywhere in the world. Eventually India will get there.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#342

Post by viklove »

vinay_ys wrote: post #247
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.

Subservient isn't the right word I think. A lot of rich and famous attended the Ambani wedding events – Clinton, Huffington etc and a lot of celebrities from world over. Beyonce did a show too. So did a lot of Bollywood celebrities. These celebrities do paid gigs at these ultra rich wedding parties. https://www.wmagazine.com/story/isha-ambani-wedding-india-hi...

Attending an event as a guest is very, very different than attending an event as a server...

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#343

Post by sizzle »

smenyp wrote: post #305
sizzle wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't understand. If they decide to hire more in India they won't need H-1Bs any more." That's exactly the point I was trying to make, that the former H-1B individuals will be hired to work at these new facilities in their homeland instead of bringing them to the bay area, as they no longer have physical working spaces here due to Covid-19 office closures and remote WFH for the foreseeable future. Tech companies c…

But "this will increase salaries by reducing supply" is the common narrative on HN that one cannot fight. Reasoning bottoms-up, you are right. This will reduce Bay Area footprint, and will allow good talent to join at lower costs. Couple this with top Indian talent in US not being treated fairly (most Indian immigrants have to wait 4-5 decades before being eligible for a green card even at Google / FB / etc..). The f…

Thank, I'm also invested in this area. I am trying to arm myself with knowledge to possibly correct course and be as realistic as possible in the next 5 - 10+ years out.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#344

Post by psankar »

vghaisas wrote: post #240
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"?

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.)

> the Indian equivalent of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" is "Kaun Banega Crorepati"

The North Indian equivalent is called so. Atleast, In TN we have our own version of the show, based on the same "Crore" denomination but not thus called.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#345

Post by newen »

viklove wrote: post #342
vinay_ys wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subservient isn't the right word I think. A lot of rich and famous attended the Ambani wedding events – Clinton, Huffington etc and a lot of celebrities from world over. Beyonce did a show too. So did a lot of Bollywood celebrities. These celebrities do paid gigs at these ultra rich wedding parties. https://www.wmagazine.com/story/isha-ambani-wedding-india-hi...

Attending an event as a guest is very, very different than attending an event as a server...

Serving in many Indian weddings can be done by friends and family. It's like showing that you're very close to the family.

Not too long ago, it used to be that family and friends would get together to cook for the wedding.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#346

Post by dang »

cvlasdkv wrote: post #317
vinay427 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is the burden of proof on the poster arguing that India is more democratic rather than the side arguing that US is more democratic? Because they made the claim, and I found this claim more unconventional and potentially more interesting to draw out than the claims in the comment they replied to. There was no conscious hidden agenda here. If someone (on whatever side of this discussion) makes a novel claim, they…

It is only a "novel" claim in America, where America must be the best of everything.

Please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#347

Post by biql »

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #105
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #62

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).

Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s small, might be just undervalued and it’s probably cheaper to run a startup there due to lower cost of living and salaries.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#348

Post by kumarharsh »

psankar wrote: post #344
vghaisas wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> the Indian equivalent of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" is "Kaun Banega Crorepati" The North Indian equivalent is called so. Atleast, In TN we have our own version of the show, based on the same "Crore" denomination but not thus called.

What is this fetish by some people to always label things "North Indian"? It is a national show on a national television where the participants are from all around India (from Ladakh to Tamil Nadu, Gujarat to Arunachal Pradesh).

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#349

Post by freyr »

dboat wrote: post #270
freyr wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regular citizens do not have the opportunity to successfully lobby for tax avoidance loopholes to be created and maintained for their benefit, so responding to a point about unequal advantages to corporations with a comment about rational accounting is unhelpful. Is your position that corporations don't have an unjust advantage, or that the unjust advantage is okay and people shouldn't complain about it?

Neither -- I'm not comparing citizens and corporations. I'm simply saying that it's naive to expect a company to voluntarily pay more taxes than is required. They will not pay more taxes than required until the laws are changed.

Notice that I haven't made a claim that corporations should be treated as individuals, or that corporations do or don't have an unjust advantage, or that having an unjust advantage is okay.

Post reply on HN