Hacker News Reader

Comment by partingshots | Hacker News Reader

Does the fact that Google and Microsoft have Indian CEOs, Sundar / Satya respectively, give them an advantage when dealing with the Indian market? Especially when considering the fact this pronounced interest in Jio is largely just as a way to enter into negotiations with the owners of the Indian market/government.

View on HN

Based on my limited experience (2.5 years based in Singapore (2010-2012) as tech evangelist for Amazon Web Services for APAC, ~25 business trips to India, dealing mostly with businesses but sometimes with government), understanding the culture helps, but I don't think at that level it's going to make a huge difference, compared to what's actually on the table.

Counterpoint (I'm not Indian): there are people on either side of that table. Being born and raised in the culture and economic conditions, referencing shared experiences, probably helps communication, a lot.

At a superficial level - yes

Both grew up in India before migrating to US so understand India very well

In reality

Sundar Pichai - no

Satya Nadella - yes. This guy is a @#$#$ genius. And Indians have a lot of respect for smart people who deliver results

So, Indian Goverment is not owned by Reliance

However, all things being equal Indian Government would prefer an Indian company like Reliance owns the keys to the kingdom, rather than some imperialist cunt like Bezos or Zuckerberg

So now these imperialist companies have no choice but to team up with Reliance

Bezos' plans in India are screwed, though, by the way

WalMart/Flipkart was good competition and still #1

However, JioMart is basically as vicious and happy to do illegal things as Bezos and he has all the connections in India

So India can be written off completely for Amazon retail

Bezos' only choice now is to partner with Ambani as a small stakeholder

What’s the point of censoring a curse word. Genuinely curious ?

It's only strange to me given that what I consider an even stronger swear is used two paragraphs down from that. I'm not sure if that's due to cultural differences though (I'm American, but I don't know where GP is from).

I was just curious and asked a genuine question but instead got the HackerNews downvote. Maybe it is because of my username people think I am trolling?

FWIW, I didn't downvote you; I share your curiosity here, just with some additional context I wanted to provide

> JioMart.

Recently ordered a few items on it. A toothpaste, some Almonds.

It came in a paper bag, wet from rain, soggy and a mess.

However there are two things that are massively in favor of JioMart.

Reliance already has about 11,000 stores in over 6700 cities. These are called "Reliance Fresh" and are quite popular. JioMart is using these stores to send orders to and deliver them.

The costs for capital and expenses for these stores are already done and most of them are profitable.

All JioMart is doing is to consolidate the stock information, take orders and push orders to appropriate stores.

Not going to downvote, but Reliance is equally "imperialist" in terms of where and how it can express market dominance.

Imperialism is a function of nation-states, not corporations.

Most nations have "national champion" corporations that work with the nation's government to promote/influence other nations. US/Boeing, EU/Airbus, France/Bull, etc.

So calling Bezos/Zuckerberg "imperialist" while Pichai/Nadella are somehow not is ridiculous. These are CEOs of corporations. All corporations are "imperialist" in that they are attempting to gain "market" against their competitors and they will co-opt their associated nation-state to help that.

Corporations are amoral by definition.

> Does the fact that Google and Microsoft have Indian CEOs, Sundar / Satya respectively, give them an advantage when dealing with the Indian market?

If the way this dynamic works in India is as I was told, like in Eastern Europe, then no.

A lot of stay at home high class people often have scorn for "whiz kids" returning from abroad, bringing with them their baggage, or plainly they envy them.

They see men who made to the top in a much more level playing field as somebody much superior to themselves, and they don't like it.

I thought Facebook got the better deal as it signed it before google.

They might be wrong caste to matter in any negotiations? also https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3azjp5/silicon-valley-has...

That very article: "Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, and Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, are both Indian immigrants who come from the higher Brahmin caste"

Mukesh Ambani, the founder and chairman of Jio, is not a Brahmin. So the idea that caste differences could play a part in dealings of this sort is a fair topic.

only caste Ambani believes in is money caste

Reply on news.ycombinator.com