Connect with us

Knowledge

India’s War on Cash

Published

on

Late last year, India declared war on cash: It killed off 86 percent of its own currency.

More than 1.2 billion people lost their right to buy items like iPhones at the market with cash or — more darkly — hide income from the government.

As you might expect, chaos ensued. But amidst the hair-rending, there is reason to deliver hope to those wondering how to thrive in a cashless society. Because while it may be bad for the black market, it’s good news for entrepreneurs — and those who like to transact legally.

Virtually overnight, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a startling policy to demonetize 500 and 1000 rupee notes, the most common form of cash notes in the country. He put forward an extraordinary list of restrictions on how much new currency can be withdrawn daily and weekly from ATMs and banks, while monitoring large deposits into banks of old notes and also putting in rules to verify the authenticity of depositors and buyers. Needless to say, this was a shock to millions of people. India’s informal economy is massive, and 90 percent of all transactions are in cash.

Modi’s drastic action was designed to tackle monstrous and unbridled corruption in India, where less than 3 percent of Indians file taxes and only half pay any income tax. A “cash and carry” economy implies that businesses, in both the formal and informal sectors, do not pay sales tax or declare income. Real estate is among the worst offenders. These private transactions presumably carry the blessings of the political leaders and government officials, who possibly get a cut from the sales.

Harvard economist and Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has criticized Modi’s assault on cash as draconian, calling it a despotic action that has struck at the root of an economy based on trust. He argues that economic development is fine irrespective of how it is achieved, giving credence to what some call the Asian Paradox, where high-levels of corruption are correlated with high economic growth.

This argument ignores something fundamental to economic development: ethics and moral judgment. Professor Sen uses the term “trust,” but trust isn’t innate. It comes as a result of fair and equitable actions, both within the government and throughout the economy. If individuals and businesses engage in legal economic activity and pay taxes, the government has more resources to invest in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, and this spurs economic development. Over time, it builds trust. Such a society also opens the door to innovation and entrepreneurship, an area in which India falls woefully behind the U.S. despite being rich in human capital.

When a majority of society is economically immoral, it hurts the people who want to conduct business ethically. India has abundant latent entrepreneurs with ideas, but they drop out from pursuing their dreams because they do not have the network, wherewithal, or the conviction to embrace unethical and immoral practices to get things done. As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has suggested, it is more expensive to be legal than to be illegal in many parts of the world. India is no exception.

Modi felt compelled to take drastic action because corruption in India had reached a point of no return. This includes the education and healthcare industries — the sectors that should be a beacon of trust and which provide fertile ground for fresh ideas and new enterprises.

There will be unavoidable pain, and I sympathize with my colleagues and family in India, but the pain will be short-lived and, for a better India, it will be successful. I envision a day when the clever, young innovators in my home country benefit from the same vibrant environment for new business creation that is available to my students here in Austin, Texas.

___________________________________________________

About the Author

This article was written by Prabhudev Konana of Texas Enterprise. Prabhudev is the William H.Seay Centennial Professor in the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin.

Entrepreneurship

Science is the Next Big Thing in Startups

Published

on

From pharmaceuticals to petrochemical processes: Newcomer companies and investors and investors alike are setting their sights on science. How the start-up scene moves beyond the mobile apps bubble…

For the last two years Silicon Valley analysts and venture capitalists are anticipating the burst of yet another bubble. This time, under the risk are the mobile start-ups which constitute the biggest share of the market. Out of 50 companies listed in Forbes’ “the hottest startup of 2015” (by valuation) only six companies are based on innovations in other-than-mobile area, one company provide cleaning services, while the rest are diverse mobile apps.

Meanwhile many products listed can be barely called innovative. A significant proportion of the listed start-ups are texting apps, apps for people search (starting from business partners to life partners) or delivery services. While those services can definitely facilitate one’s life, in general they differ from their predecessors by only a narrower audience.

Many venture investors expect stagnation if not decrease on the markets, which is why they start to transfer their capitals from start-ups offering customers software to start-ups offering specific solutions for existing businesses. Such companies are expected to demonstrate more stability in the near future.

The Market for Mobile Apps Might be Saturated

Back in 2012 a talented entrepreneur could walk into a venture capitalist’s office, say his startup was a mobile-first solution for pretty much any problem (payments! photos! blogging!), and walk out with a good-size seed investment. “That pitch was enough to get going,” says Roelof Botha, a partner with VC firm Sequoia Capital. “It’s not enough anymore.”

“I think investors are bored with investing in another messaging app. And our idea is crazy enough that it might just work. ”, has declared in 2014 Nadir Bagaveyev a founder of a start-up using 3-D printers to make rocket engines. By 2016 the company attracted investors funding sufficient to launch its first rocket.

Pharma and Biotech Start-Ups in High Demand

Currently the most successful science-based start-ups are the companies offering innovative solutions in the field of pharmaceuticals and biotechnologies. It’s noteworthy that despite the previous revelations and even judicial proceedings the list of the most expensive start-ups still includes Theranos, blood analyzing laboratory, whose story did not descend from the main pages of the global leading media from 2014.

It first amazed the audience with its fantastic take-off and then with its collapse. One of the crucial parts of the success story of this start-up is its fundamental difference from the majority of the services produced in the Silicon Valley. Unlike the others, it was not a story of yet another beautiful gadget for communication or mobile app, but the story of the scientific idea which intended to conquer the world.

The great success stories in other scientific areas are now happening on occasional basis. However certain facts allow to predict that the situation is to change soon. One of such factors is growing interest among the big corporations to attract innovative solutions from outside to develop their businesses.

Given the accelerating pace of scientific and technological development of the world, the activities of internal R & D departments are often turn to be insufficient to ensure stable development of innovative business. Outsourcing of the R&D may become the efficient mechanism to stimulate the growth of the company. And high-tech start-up can certainly benefit from it.

Start-Up Technology for the Petro-Business

In December, 2016 world leading companies in the field of gas processing, petrochemicals and chemicals announced their intentions to enforce their R&D capacities by attracting start-ups. 3M, AkzoNobel, BASF, The Dow Chemical Company, DuPont, Henkel, Honeywell UOP, LG Chem, Linde, Sibur, Solvay and Technip together created a global stage for startups and investors.

“The petrochemicals industry can and must rely on the potential of open innovations to facilitate further inventions and implementation of new solutions in all major application areas, from construction and medicine to packaging and 3D printing. Thanks to the participation of international partners, IQ-CHem is now the largest global project within the industry which attracts innovative solutions and provides for their implementation into practice,” said Vasily Nomokonov, Executive Director of Sibur, a company which coordinates the project.

Positive Experience in Chemicals and Beyond

Some of the listed companies have already gained positive experience in working with start-ups which may have driven them to elaborate a systemic approach to attract innovative companies.

At the beginning of 2016, SIBUR and RRT Global start-up reached an agreement to build a pilot plant for isomerization based on RRT Global technologies in Sibur’s Industrial Park SIBUR “Tolyattisintez”. According to Oleg Giyazov, co-founder and CEO of RRT Global cooperation with a large corporation bring significant advantages to his company.

“By cooperation with Sibur we get a huge industrial experience that enables us to develop technologies and solutions better fitted to the market demand. This advantage is often not given due attention, but we, on the contrary, see significant opportunities in it. Currently, RRT Global cooperates with several companies around the world” he said.

Another petrochemical leader BASF enjoys successful cooperation with Genomatica start-up. In 2013 BASF started the production of 1,4-butanediol based on renewable feedstock (renewable BDO) using Genomatica’s patented process and in 2015 the license was expanded to the Asian market.

Unlike traditional forms of cooperation between a start-up and a venture capitalist, a cooperation between start-up and a relevant corporation allows to minimize the risks associated with investing in a potentially promising idea where the key word is “potential” (but not “guaranteed”). While delivering services in the same field as the start-up the corporation gets an opportunity to more effectively and accurately estimate the market value of an innovative idea and to support its implementation.

Structural Changes Ahead: Outlines of A Coming Market

In the short term prospective, possibly in 2017, the global start-up market will face structural changes – both in terms of start-ups professional orientation and of funding mechanism. In the future science-based start-ups will dominate the market and will change our lives at a deeper level than the way of sending a text message or searching the restaurant for an evening meal. To be more concise this is already happening in the pharmaceutical industry, and the other scientific areas are to follow.

_________________________________________________

About the Author

This article was written by Dominik Stephan of Process Worldwide. See more.

Continue Reading

Entrepreneurship

Do Aesthetics Matter?

Published

on

Asa product designer, sometimes I question how important beauty is when it comes to software.

Look at this list of some of the most popular websites on the Internet:

  • Craigslist
  • Reddit
  • Hacker News
  • Wikipedia
  • Drudge Report

These sites have little to no aesthetic appeal, but collectively they are visited by tens of millions people every day.

So I ask myself…

Are we just showing off our design skills to other designers? Does the average consumer notice? Do aesthetics have a direct impact on revenue?

These are questions worth answering.

“No, Aesthetics Don’t Matter!”

Some would point to the above examples (and more) to make the case that beauty is irrelevant. They’d say visual design is mostly un-measurable mushy marketing.

After all, software is a tool. We use it to accomplish tasks like communicating, writing, checking off a to-do, or socializing with a friend.

Giving the user the ability to perform a unique task is far more important than making it look good.

We jump on Wikipedia because it’s easy to get free encyclopedic information. We pull up Craigslist because we want to buy or sell something locally without having to pay for it. We visit Reddit for its distinctive take.

It doesn’t matter that these sites are ugly because they’re the best tools for their specific job.

In fact, part of the popularity of these sites has become their ugliness. It’s as if the user base is saying, “We just laugh at how ugly Reddit/Drudge Report/Hacker News is because we get quite a lot of utility from it, and that’s what matters most.”

You can’t build a valueless product, throw some eye-appeal on it, and expect it to last.

The ever-stunning rain poncho. Source

Take a rain poncho. This is an incredibly ugly piece of clothing. But millions of them are sold every year because they’re really good at their job — keeping you dry.

“Yes, Aesthetics Do Matter!”

Others say beauty is critically important.

stripe.com

For companies trying to build or sustain a brand, visual design matters because it’s part of the package. People recognize Stripe, for example, in part because of their stand-out aesthetics. Paul Rand said:

“Design is the silent ambassador of your brand.”

Something beautiful is also pleasing to use. And pleased customers keep coming back. It’s a piece (however small) of user experience.

When something is beautiful, you can feel that there was some thought put into its creation. That makes it feel professional and gives it an air of having been built on purpose — a feeling that whoever created this thought about you, the user, as they made it. When the opposite is true, it feels like someone just hacked it together.

Those sites mentioned above — Craigslist, Reddit, etc. — those are the exception. They’re popular in spite of being ugly because they were first to market and have an entrenched user base. For those of us building something new, there’s no reason to purposefully forgo aesthetics.

Think back a decade ago to when the very first iPhone came out. The usability and utility were there in abundance, to be sure. But people were also astounded by how beautiful it was. No other phone looked like that. Many people were (and still are) willing to pay an astronomical price for it, in large part because of that beauty.

My Takeaways

Which side are you on?

I don’t think it’s black and white. It’s a matter of priorities.

“Form follows function.” Function certainly comes first, but that doesn’t mean form is nonexistent.

To me, the priority goes like this:

  1. Utility. Does your software help the consumer perform a unique task in a distinctive way? If it doesn’t, the heart of your software is missing and it will eventually die. Who wants a tool that doesn’t help you accomplish something?
  2. Usability. Do you get out of their way so they can execute that task easily and intuitively? Is it reliable, speedy, organized?
  3. Aesthetics. Is it attractive in a way that contributes to utility and usability?

By all means, add beauty. Beauty is wonderful. But utility and usability come first because that’s why people are there in the first place. Build around the purpose, then add aesthetics on top of that.

Your user will thank you for it.

________________________________________________

About the Author

This article was produced by Jordan Bowman of HackerNoon. see more.

Continue Reading

Trending