Comment by riverlong
6 years ago
I'm seeing lots of comments about national security-style concerns, and framing this in terms of the recent India-China skirmishes. That all makes sense.
Where I think a lot of folks are missing the point is that this is also a tremendous boost to local Indian entrepreneurship. One of the really clever aspects of China's Great Firewall is that it keeps out international competition, which would crush local startups. By banning more advanced, foreign competitors, India gives its local entrepreneurs a chance to grow hugely successful domestic apps, which can then compete internationally.
While I agree about symmetric response to China, here is the problem:
> By banning more advanced, foreign competitors, India gives its local entrepreneurs a chance to grow hugely successful domestic apps, which can then compete internationally.
If India bans international apps from competing within India, wouldn't Indian apps from these new found enterpreneurs expect the same response from other countries? There is a paradox here.
Why should any country allow Indian apps if they cannot compete in India? You realize this is the exact same situation as what India is doing with China. Now replace China with India.
What hypocrisy!
Thing is chija is already restricting outside entrepreneurs. I don't think that's hypocrisy, it's a two way street
There's no paradox here. The balkanization of the web is a foregone conclusion. And not just between geopolitical rivals: the EU is dead set on creating a local version of FAANG companies.
EU creating its own FAANG would be a great thing for consumers - more competition. Americans wouldn’t mind using EU based services. I personally already use one such critical service - Email.
When you turn inwards(like China) and then expect widespread adoption and cooperation whilst banning domestic competition, do you really think that’s better for India?
India has the capability to compete at the global level without turning inwards. Entrepreneurs in India can and will compete internationally. When you have virtually no international competition, the overall incentive to compete is reduced and the quality with it.
>wouldn't Indian apps from these new found enterpreneurs expect the same response from other countries?
I am from India, and I don't think this would matter a lot if the company doesn't suffer from grand delusions of trying to go global etc. There are a lot of very idiosyncratic things about the culture here (just as in other countries) where it makes a lot of sense to develop India specific apps.
Also, the nature of innovation itself would change if an app is developed to cater primarily to people in India. A perfect example of this is the recently introduced UPI payments scheme, which if I understand correctly is already far ahead in terms of convenience when compared to payments services in developed countries. And I am very thankful neither Facebook nor TikTok controls it in any way, shape or form!
Otherwise, I agree with your sentiment, as it applies generally to trade policies between true allies. The only problem I have is that China is an exception when it comes to these bilateral trade policies, because they have a long history of bullying [1] smaller neighbors, and they can rarely be trusted when it comes to any kind of neighborliness. People who are pro-China should come and live a few years in these regions, and I expect they won't remain pro-China for very long.
And then throw in the rampant IP theft, and it seems to me that pro-China advocates are acting like useful idiots.
I will add a very ironic thing I read recently by one of those useful idiots, who said "Thank God this didn’t start in somewhere like India, because there’s absolutely no way that the quality of Indian governance could move to react in the way that the Chinese have done" [2]. The irony of course is that China is trying to convince the world that the virus didn't even originate in China. In other words, Mr. Jim O'Neill would likely be in Chinese prison if he had made that statement from inside of China. I bet the heavy-handedness wouldn't taste so good if you become one of the victims. Nassim Taleb would have mocked this as the statement of a guy who "has no skin in the game".
[1] https://news.usni.org/2020/01/27/panel-china-now-well-positi...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/11/thank-god-this-didnt-start-i...
Specifically, responding to the comment about local start ups in India: I agree with these notes,
- A company that wants to cater to Indian public must understand the local system, rules, culture, laws, taboos, and norms.
- Local and domestic entrepreneurs in India have that edge by the virtue of being immersed in the locality.
- Foreign companies will always need to adapt and evolve according to the needs of the Indian public.
This is the best kind of “head start” or “subsidization” one can have in a free and open market. There is nothing wrong with this.
The problem is in preventing international companies from competing in India which, I believe was the case before the 90’s. That was a disastrous foreign policy as the history books tell us.
I was glad that finally someone provided some sort of reference, but the article's title turned out to be "China Now Well Positioned to Bully Neighbors in South China Sea". I don't doubt what you're saying, but it hardly supports the bully accusation. It was an interesting read, I had no idea that the host countries of US bases had to help pay for them.
Speaking of state victims, here's a fun fact - India rounded up all of its ethnic Chinese residents (including Indian citizens) and put them into an internment camp for 5 years with no apology or compensation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Chinese-Indians
2 replies →
- Banning TikTok would move traffic to Instagram, not a “local Indian entrepreneur”
- the Indian startup ecosystem is dependent on external capital, a lot of which comes from China. This protectionist attitude will lead to a overall negative sentiment about investing in Indian tech.
Your first point actually seems pretty unclear for something stated as fact. TikTok and Instagram are both social networks, sure, but they’re quite different
This is a good point, for me the most intriguing aspect of this ban.
Not only is it a good idea from security perspective - as well as privacy as a selling point - by forbidding specific, popular foreign services, it opens up the market for domestic players to grow. This is what China has done, and now India is doing the same to them.
Overall, this seems like a win for the people in India.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no...
India’s GDP is much much smaller than most think: its smaller than California’s GDP. That doesn’t seem so bad since they’re so close to other European countries but remember that India’s population is also considerably larger.
Sorry, mind explaining the connection between India's GDP and the parent comment?
> Where I think a lot of folks are missing the point is that this is also a tremendous boost to local Indian entrepreneurship.
Last I looked, a good portion of the funding for Indian startups is from China.