4 ms·

Nice! Continuing on the same thread; India is a huge market for Infrastructure and Manufacturing right now(Power plants, roads, rail, clothing etc), so people a

Nice! Continuing on the same thread; India is a huge market for Infrastructure and Manufacturing right now(Power plants, roads, rail, clothing etc), so people are putting their money and their brains into those markets, rather than working on a world changing technology. That money is easier to get than the world changing technology money.

netcan 15y ago
I wouldn't say those things aren't part of or can't include world changing technology.
- intended 15y ago
  This. India doesn't need a tech based YC, thats why tech startups can't gain as much traction here. The issues we face were the ones faced by other nations a while ago - building infrastructure, and improving governance.
  - netcan 15y ago
    Nations face multiple issues at once. Almost all large countries need infrastructure, health, science, tech, manufacturing, etc. etc. to thrive economically. India needs a little more infrastructure in its diet. That doesn't mean it stops needing the other stuff. Anyway all this "India needs x" is not the useful way of looking at things. Think "Can x succeed in India? How?"
    - intended 15y ago
      I never said that India doesn't face multiple issues, if that was suggested from my comment, it was misleading and I apologize. That said over here, the risks to failure are higher for startups due to having to overcome the lack of infrastructure - which means more support work is required for each hour of work spent on the actual product. Just getting a good internet connection, or even electricity, can be hugely difficult, adding to the chores which an entrepreneur will get out of his way, before he can focus on his product. This is one of the reasons, India has far more successful service companies than product companies. To me this means that a product/service has to have a much higher chance of succeeding (risk reduction) or higher pay off when it takes off, to make seed funding viable in the first place. If infrastructure is built though, then costs are lowered, and risk/cost of failure goes down. Especially risk brought on by external factors not related to the team, market, service or product. Please note: I am not saying that failure doesn't hurt in San Francisco or America. I am saying that in comparison, you would rather fail in the states, than you would in India.
      - netcan 15y ago
        I think its just your style of writing. Also I think you are writing from a political perspective rather than an entrepreneurial one. Nothing wrong with that. Most people here are neither Indian politicians or entrepreneurs, it's just that this forum is biased to one perspective.

netcan 15y ago

I wouldn't say those things aren't part of or can't include world changing technology.

intended 15y ago
This. India doesn't need a tech based YC, thats why tech startups can't gain as much traction here. The issues we face were the ones faced by other nations a while ago - building infrastructure, and improving governance.
- netcan 15y ago
  Nations face multiple issues at once. Almost all large countries need infrastructure, health, science, tech, manufacturing, etc. etc. to thrive economically. India needs a little more infrastructure in its diet. That doesn't mean it stops needing the other stuff. Anyway all this "India needs x" is not the useful way of looking at things. Think "Can x succeed in India? How?"
  - intended 15y ago
    I never said that India doesn't face multiple issues, if that was suggested from my comment, it was misleading and I apologize. That said over here, the risks to failure are higher for startups due to having to overcome the lack of infrastructure - which means more support work is required for each hour of work spent on the actual product. Just getting a good internet connection, or even electricity, can be hugely difficult, adding to the chores which an entrepreneur will get out of his way, before he can focus on his product. This is one of the reasons, India has far more successful service companies than product companies. To me this means that a product/service has to have a much higher chance of succeeding (risk reduction) or higher pay off when it takes off, to make seed funding viable in the first place. If infrastructure is built though, then costs are lowered, and risk/cost of failure goes down. Especially risk brought on by external factors not related to the team, market, service or product. Please note: I am not saying that failure doesn't hurt in San Francisco or America. I am saying that in comparison, you would rather fail in the states, than you would in India.
    - netcan 15y ago
      I think its just your style of writing. Also I think you are writing from a political perspective rather than an entrepreneurial one. Nothing wrong with that. Most people here are neither Indian politicians or entrepreneurs, it's just that this forum is biased to one perspective.