Comments on: Editorial: Why Google Should Bid For Wireless Spectrum In India, But Probably Wont

By: guest

guest — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:53:11 +0000

Google is most likely to invest in wireless semi-passively, merely to make it sure that mobile broadband networks are actually deployed, and that the equivalent of net neutrality is advanced in India. Such has been their strategy to date in the US with their postured bidding for US spectrum last year, as well as their investment in Clearwire. Google's interests are best served by enabling the proliferation of all broadband wireless networks worldwide, because those are the highways for the emerging augmented reality mobile advertising business.

By: Nofear

Nofear — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:26:54 +0000

Nikhil I agree with you,
Look at China, a local search engine site and a local auction site have given Google and Ebay run for their money. (Baidu and Taobao)

Indian companies needs to think big and invest for long term and not just fight for the remaining 1 %.

By: Kash

Kash — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:30:36 +0000

I think one needs to think beyond just funding. Google and companies in that ilk are the very infrastructure of the internet. If they monopolize we all lose.
For example, in 2006-07 all the online travel companies in India went on a spending spree but had no options when it came to search in India. The result? Huge CPC inflation on Goog leading finally to all of them pulling back to almost zero. No one gained fromthis exercise save Google. If Yahoo or Bing etc had been there, I know monies would have been spread and provided better ROI and more passing of value to consumers and better value creation throughout the ecosystem.

In this scenario, a strong Google could improve broadband quality but if left with no serious competition, we could see price inflation, lack of customer service (we all remember the arrogant Goog sales teams of 2005-07 in Mumbai and Delhi) etc.

Goog has a great culture of quality. They are also known to breed egos (Sukhinder, Deep Nishar, not-to-be named Mumbai sales guys etc) and have some people who believe they are better than they actually are. The concern is that in a service industry (broadband provision), tech superiority will only take u so far! Competition will be key.

By: Aaa

Aaa — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:17:06 +0000

@ nikhil: I don't speak for Bemused, but here is my take on the following para:

"On the other hand, I have been concerned about the growing dominance of Google in India – it clearly dominates the tiny Indian Internet industry and its online advertising market… We’re in a situation where most online businesses in India aren’t competing with Google – only competing among themselves for leftovers – and innovation and funding might be stunted because of that."

Your argument seems to be that Google is a very big player – nearly a monopoly – and as so many smaller players are dependent on google at the present time, the size of Google endangers the industry.

1. The TMT industry is an extremely rapidly evolving industry, and no player has had a sustained advantage/monopoly in the industry that has caused any harm to the industry. Players such as IBM and Microsoft have been dominant in some spaces in the industry for some stretches of time, and in my POV, that hasn't done any harm whatsoever to the industry. Sustained advantage is very difficult to hold on to in any industry, and more specifically in the TMT verticals. Microsoft took over from IBM, Google is giving Microsoft some fierce competition. With so much convergence happening, who knows what the next killer app is?

2. Life is not a zero-sum game. Such markets exist where even a market share of less than 1% is profitable. Also, business models that lack innovation and are unable to build a strong following may struggle to obtain advertising-based revenues. We are seeing a lot of innnovation right now, in the ticketing space for example (redbus, bookmyshow, kyazoonga), or in the gaming space, and I frankly don't see funding getting stunted just because google is a very big player.

Offhand, I can think of the above reasons. Maybe you would like to expand upon your argument a bit more.

By: Nikhil Pahwa

Nikhil Pahwa — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:02:16 +0000

Bemused: Looks like you’re just trolling.

By: Bemused

Bemused — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:10:16 +0000

Stay grounded. Stay humble. Learn.

By: Bemused

Bemused — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:09:14 +0000

Because its such a daft remark to make. You have clearly no sense of technology history or development. Its always amusing to see folks like you with no qualifications or experience make such "deep" statements.

By: vengat

vengat — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:36:29 +0000

"One can’t really blame them because in the medium or even long term, the ROI in broadband just isn’t there"

Why do you think so? Shouldnt it be the other way round? Voice ARPUs are dropping so fast, it should be data that will save the decline…
Besides, for most operators, the infra and backbone are already invested(and hence a sunk cost – whether voice or data)…

By: Nikhil Pahwa

Nikhil Pahwa — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:12:55 +0000

why do you think so?

By: Bemused

Bemused — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:00:48 +0000

"On the other hand, I have been concerned about the growing dominance of Google in India "
- What an utterly stupid statement.