Hacker News Reader

Comment by hackuser | Hacker News Reader

Exciting, but I'm wary of journalism that presents no critical voices.

This was interesting:

Srikanth Nadhamuni, chief executive officer of Khosla Labs, said the best way to think of the project is by comparing it to how shampoo was introduced in India. Decades ago, most people couldn't afford to buy an entire bottle of shampoo, so Unilever, Procter & Gamble and other companies sold them in small sachets that people could afford to buy, paving the way for marketing everything from detergent to toothpaste in rural areas. Nadhamuni is betting that the new digital payments system will be be low-cost, high-volume, like a "shampoo-sachet revolution in the financial sector."

Perhaps this tech could help with micropayments elsewhere.

View on HN

I'll disagree with the fact that multinationals like Unilever and P&G start producing and marketing sachets in India. This was pioneered by an Indian entrepreneur Chinni Krishnan[1]. These firms just ended up copying their business model.

[1] http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/mar/22bspec.htm

Funny reading that, multinationals introduced relatively useless products to the masses using small quantities they could afford. The first hit is free.

This is more about control then actually improving anything. India still has problems with terror that could be better tracked if all finances could be scrutinized. Corruption too. If we can only get Pakistan to do the same.

Why are toothpaste and shampoo "relatively useless"? I believe there are many health benefits to using them.

I don't know for sure, however, because I've never tried going without them for long ... let me know how that goes.

For toothpaste they were already using other things. And shampoo does not have health benefits. Maybe it makes you smell a bit better, but rural Indians don't care too much about BO even now.

ex for toothpaste: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3545237/

I can't even begin to describe how condescending your comment comes across as.

Setting aside the fact that condescending comments aren't mutually exclusive with true ones, I wonder if those packagings weren't "relatively useless" simply for the fact that small packagings ususally tend to be more expensive in the long run. It's more or less the same problem as with poor people in developed countries not being able to save money on batch buys, especially in case of supermarket discounts.

That's not what he said. You're putting words in his mouth.

Shampoo is maybe useful. Some sort of soap + scalp action, occasionally, is beneficial. Plenty of people in the west don't use shampoo or use it rarely.

You don't really need toothpaste. It's the brushing part that's good for removing detritus from your teeth.

Edit: Downvote with no comment? How is this comment non-constructive, so I can avoid doing it in the future?

I didn't downvote you, but perhaps somewhat extraordinary claims require a little evidence.

They aren't especially extraordinary claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shampoo#No_Poo_Movement

https://www.quora.com/How-much-less-effective-is-brushing-yo...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com