Categories
Uncategorized

Rajesh Jain – “Turn the VC model around”

Rajesh Jain, in the same interview, makes a most profound statement about Venture Capital in India. The second paragraph is true of “New Tech” around the world, especially the United States.

I believe we need a new approach to venture capital in India. There is a very limited legacy, so it’s not going to evolve the way the U.S. did or even perhaps the way China did. In India there are lots of gaps across multiple value chains. Sometimes a service fails to take off because some parts along the value chain are not appropriately digitized. What ought to happen is a large amount of investment across building out an ecosystem of companies. Instead of waiting for an entrepreneur to come up with a business plan, venture capitalists need to be much more proactive. They should say, “The capital is available, now let’s find a CEO for this business and back that person with funding. Let’s start multiple companies based on what we have seen in other countries, and what we think the opportunities are in India.”

This is a very different, inside-out approach, where you end up flipping the model around. That requires much more work. It will not work if the core venture capital team lives abroad and just comes to India once in a while. We need people on the ground who understand the realities of India today, who understand how the technology is evolving, and who can make bets on what the future is going to be.

Categories
Uncategorized

The Economist on China’s and India’s Tech Industry

[This part via Rajesh Jain]

The Economist :

“…although China and India are often lumped together as tomorrow’s technology titans, there are marked contrasts in their technological development. They have roughly the same population, but China spends 2.5 times as much on technology as India does. It is already the world’s largest mobile-phone market, and the second-largest market for PCs. Moreover, at the end of 2005, China had around 110m internet users, compared with 51m in India; and today China has 430m mobile-phone users, versus 120m in India. The two countries are adopting technology at different paces and in different ways.”

The next paragraph, though, has a few interesting points. Some of them are wrongly justified:

“Centralised economies can pour resources into projects and direct the development of entire industries, something that is much harder in India’s sprawling, bureaucratic democracy.”

The classic problem with centralized economies is that they are extremely slow to react to change! And I’m surprised the writer didn’t choose to examine how sustainiable this sort of planning is, especially given that the technology industry is constantly in a state of flux. The “direction of development” of the technology industry is, today, being decided in all sorts of places – the USA, Finland, India, Japan, Brazil, China, Korea – and there is simply no way that you can lead this industry by committee directives.

For mobile phones, China established a second state-owned operator to challenge the incumbent, while India’s operators remained tangled up for years in legal fights over a botched regulatory framework.

Ah. Very smart. Imagine another BSNL – wouldn’t that be cool! I wonder, though, if this won’t result in a cartel, which then isn’t too different from having a monopoly. India’s myriad private telecom service providers all driving prices and margine relentlessly down, seem a better bet than China’s state owned behemoths.

China has also tried to develop its own technical standards so that it can avoid paying royalties to foreign firms for using intellectual property.

In a world built on open standards, this is not very smart. Open standards, proprietary implementations are going to be the norm for a while.