Comment by netcan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by netcan | Hacker News Reader

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

- Douglas Adams -

YC is an evolved system. It's probably better suited for Silicon Valley in 2011 than New York 1997 or Curitiba in 2025. That shouldn't be a surprise.

That doesn't mean that Curitiba in 2025 is or is not a good place and time for a YC-like creature to exist. Certain types of people, investors, exits, consumers... make it a good place for certain types of founders abc to receive xyz in exchange for 123. India is very different and obviously the local version at its best would need some adaptations. Who knows what those are.

India's opportunities are lots of programmers. Talent available at very low costs. BTW, a local hirer would be able to get much better work for his $25 per hour than a New Yorker can get via elance. A 10 person team could potentially have a burn rate under that of a two person team in California. They have under-served markets. Ballooning markets and they are potentially better placed to understand under-served ballooning markets elsewhere.

Anyway, the two conditions that supposedly don't exist in India either do or don't actually need to exist in India depending on how you interpret them. I'm nowhere near an expert and they seem silly to me. (1)Big exits are international. Maybe Facebook would be more open to buying promising small team for $2.5m locally but once you get to $250m you're not going to be off the radar anywhere. (2) Why does the market need to be able to support 2-3 large players in every market. That's not a requisite. It needs to be able to support players in some markets. Luckily some (many) markets are international and can be accessed from anywhere. And India is a large market for plenty of things.

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.

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

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.

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?"

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.

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.

Lots of programmers need not equate to programmers who can build products. It is a mindset thing. The lower burn rate theory has already been tested with a company called True Sparrow Systems in Pune, who were the building team behind SocialMedian. The cheaper programmers angle eventually slides further towards the service model, which is good, but not very good if you are looking to put together companies that build products.

1. Big exits, outside digital, do happen here. They need not always be international.

2. 2-3 players show a healthy and probably growing market. Ability to attract investment is always tied to the potential of the market and ability of the company to bite into it.

No doubt about the market size in India, the question is about the right approach to unlock it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com