Mobile companies and their analogous countries

Sometimes when a problem is too big or too abstract to grasp, we tend to equate it to something we can grasp better. We call it an analogy. Dictionary.com gives this definition:

A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

There is also a different application to an analogy. You can use it to compare a new concept to a mature concept to get a sense of how the new idea might mature in future. While this of course is not perfect, it is a reasonable approximation.

Recently, I came across an article in Engadget called Is Android fragmented or is this the new rate of innovation?

The article led me to think beyond just Android and more about the mobile market in general, and even the companies that are responsible for the primary mobile platforms. I saw some interesting similarities between these platforms and how they are modeled and some of the leading countries in the world and how they operate. I felt it was a reasonable assumption as, after all, we are seeing the mobile platform spawn the world effortlessly. So, here's my analogy of the mobile platforms (and the companies) to some of the countries of the world.

iPhone / Apple : China
The first one of course, is the most popular mobile platform at the moment, the iPhone. 

The success of iPhone as come about due to the following factors.

• Hundreds of applications at a relatively cheap price point
• One single platform and phone model (with minor variations)
• Tight grip over the user and developer base
• Tight control / censorship over how information is disseminated over its platform

While you might argue that its design innovation is what made it the leader in the space, I would argue that the factors above are what has made it sustainable beyond the initial shock and awe. As you can see, the tenets are not too dissimilar from how China operates as well.

While China is the envy of the world and is fast gaining economic power, there is also resentment about the practices it has used to get there. The point of this blog is not to argue whether such practices are ethical or not - it is up to the larger population to figure out. Rather, to me, what is striking is the similarity in itself.

Interestingly, like China, while people grudgingly complain about the non-openness of the platform and authoritarian practices, they nevertheless go ahead and buy iPhones. 

Android / Google : USA
Google is fast becoming a major competitor in the mobile space. Already a world leader in the search space, the Android OS has positioned Google well to compete in the mobile area, which to Google, is another feed for its search domination.

Android (and hence, Google) has the following features.

• It is based on a 'relatively' open platform 
• Everyone is welcome to develop in the modified Java system, but the platform retains control over its future
• It has an 'open' market although with a slant towards it's own powers (search)
• It attempts to corral the rest of the industry towards standardization
• The company promises to do 'no evil' (but may not be acting on it or perceived to be acting on it)

A lot of the fundamental principles to me seem to resonate with how the US Government operates. While in general, it tries to do more good than harm, there is general skepticism that it maybe doing it the other way around. People are cautiously optimistic about the new platform.

RIM / Blackberry : Canada
Research In Motion's Blackberry OS has become the de facto standard in business mobile usage. In that aspect, maybe it is not that similar to Canada, however there do seem to be some similarities.

• The platform is loosely based on a more standardized platform (J2ME)
• Even though the platform is quite open, it is still not as popular as it was expected to be
• It is happy to be in its own space, without trying to influence others

I am always surprised at how the platform has really not tried to expand to other markets, even after other players such as iPhone have come in and at the same time also maintain its hold on what it does best. May be they follow the words of  Jim Collins in his book Good to Great to the dot, which is not to say that it's a bad thing.

Microsoft / Windows Mobile : European Union
The article I had mentioned earlier differentiates Windows and Android in the way they see the device and software partners. Since the beginning, Microsoft has always thrived on a license-and-partner relationship, which has worked to its advantage over the years.

Windows Platform has the following characteristics.

• It works on a partnership model. Everyone pays a license to develop on the platform
• The platform heeds to the needs of the partners and waits till everyone is on board
• The overall fee structure is more expensive compared to other similar platforms
• Change is hard to make and it takes a while to happen as well

It's also ironic that Windows platform is similar to EU, given its recent problems with EU! However, the partner model (and problems thereof) does seem to resonate well.

Oracle / J2ME : India
Finally, we have the Operating System that most platforms other than those mentioned above, are based on - the Java Micro Edition. I would potentially put Symbian in the same category as well.

Let us look at the defining characteristics and the similarities.

• It's the most open platform compared to all others
• It tries to please everyone and sometimes ends up pleasing no one
• By trying to find a common minimum that will satisfy all devices, it tends to fall short of user expectations, leading users to create their own variant platforms
• Being a 'democratic' system, it has little control over the devices where it is used, leading to significant fragmentation, which in turn, compounds the problem of trying to find a common minimum.
• Even though it is a credible and viable platform, it is outdated and is fast losing its market relevance

To me, the J2ME platform's similarity to India is probably as striking as Apple's similarity to China. Interestingly enough, while both are hailed as leaders in their own way (largest democracy vs economic super power), they have their own differences.

While it may take a while for the countries to play out their roles, may be it will be interesting to see how the market reaction is to these mobile platforms, which in turn, may give a good indication of how the world will shape up - and I am not sure if the results we may see in future is something we may like to see ;)

Parking Spots and Obama Healthcare Plan

Recently, I moved to a new apartment. The house is bigger and better, but with one flaw - there are no reserved parking spots. There are plenty of parking spots and they are all on a first-come-first-serve basis.

In my old apartment complex, there is one reserved parking spot per apartment and a bunch of 'floating' spots that can be used by visitors or even extra cars. This arrangement was quite good for me, as I have only one car and so I could park it quite close to my apartment.

The new apartment complex also seems to be relatively more affluent than my old one, and as a result, it looks like many of the residents have two cars on an average. These two factors - relative affluence and lack of reserved spaces - have combined together and typically result in lack of spots close to my apartment especially late in the night, such as when I get back from shopping. While there are still plenty of spots available in general, they are no more close to my apartment.

While I can look at it as a mandatory exercise that's probably good for my body, it gets a little frustrating to not have it close to home (maybe I am becoming too American - I can visualize my Dad giving a story about how he walked for a mile to school in the old days!). Overall, I felt that my previous apartment had a much better arrangement.

This led me to thinking about some of the 'socialistic' plans of the Obama administration.

A market-driven economy seems to be equivalent to my new apartment complex. It's purely democratic and whoever can meet the demand (empty parking space), get to supply (park the car). In general, this is great - it's purely meritocratic. However, as in the case of my new apartment, the trouble comes when there is an imbalance in the economy, such as when some people have more cars than average, and some less (rich vs middle-class vs poor). In this scenario, the ones who have more and are at the right place at the right time (reasonably affluent and gainfully employed) get to park all their cars at the prime spots (good healthcare at good hospitals). At the outset, this looks great - purely meritocratic, right? But what about the average Joe who has one single car and works late? He cannot park his car because someone with two cars took his place! Now would that be considered fair? Shouldn't Joe be assured at least one spot so he can park comfortably?

To me, this seems very similar to the ideal goal of partial Government intervention, a la Obama healthcare plan (other nuances and politics aside). The government should be responsible for providing at least certain minimal level of care (one parking spot per apartment), while letting the market rule anything above (additional 'floating' parking spots for extra cars). This seems to be a much better proposition than a pure 'floating' model. Needless to say, it also better than letting the apartment management make 'all' spots reserved without any 'floating' spaces, as that provides very little flexibility and adds more bureaucracy (such as when getting a new car, you have to go to the management to get a new spot assigned).

So, in all, it looks like the ideal option is to have a 'minimum' Government intervention (aka Public Option) that provides some basic guarantees while providing some flexibility for anything beyond the minimum.We can extend the same logic to other 'social' programs such as Education as well.

What do you think? Do post a comment.

Vermont Teddy Bears - not as USA anymore?

After a gap of a few years, my wife and I traveled to the New England area to see the fall colors. I have always enjoyed going to Vermont/New Hampshire area (have been there 4-5 times now). The natural landscape is spectacular, especially during this season, the people are very friendly, and more importantly, the area still carries a lot of rustic charm that seems to be eroding in the urban areas. If anyone wants to visit the 'real' USA, at least as imagined based on past classics that are still popular in India such as Archie comics, this area is a great place to start.

Our trip was quite productive, with lots and lots of fall colors everywhere and the weather cooperated beautifully. We tried to go through as many of the local roads as possible, hoping to catch a glimpse of the fall colors in all its splendor. Ironically, I felt the colors were far more vibrant along the interstates (especially I-89 and I-91) than the local roads. One exception was the loop of Burlington-Hanksville-Waitsfield-Waterbury, which was amazingly beautiful with extremely vibrant colors - I highly recommend the drive.

I have always been pleasantly surprised by the ingenuity and local entrepreneurship in this region, the two most famous being the Ben & Jerry ice cream company and the Vermont Teddy Bear Company. In the face of increasing globalization, these two companies seemed to stand bravely, protecting the American brand proudly. However, during this time, I had a bit of a shock to find both these thoughts shattered somewhat.

Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Founded by two friends a few decades back, B&J was awarded the "Small business persons of the country" award a way back. The guys started the company small and grew fairly big. I was quite disappointed to hear that the company is now owned by Unilever - a fairly huge conglomerate of companies.

While they still seem to do their best to keep the 'local' flavor of the company alive, I cannot but help feel that commercialization has taken over this company as well. Thankfully, the ice cream still tastes the same :)

Vermont Teddy Bear
This is probably my biggest disappointment and the reason for this post. As some of you may or may not know, "teddy bear" got its name from a cartoon depicting "Theodore "teddy" Roosevelt", former American President, an avid game hunter, who could not bear himself to shoot a cub tied to a tree (by his cohorts, as he was not getting any wild animal that day).

Since then, teddy bears became quite popular. One day, a person named John Sortino wanted to get a teddy bear for his son and found that he could not buy one that was made in USA, thereby starting his own company to make some.

The company has prided itself in its small-town values and 'Made in USA' brand. Having been deluged every day with products from Asia, I was happy to do my bit to promote local products and suggested to my wife that she get herself a bear, even though it was slightly over-priced (fair enough, since they don't mass produce stuff and the quality is good).

Here came the shocker. In the "build-a-bear" section of the company, half of the options were 'imported' (read 'made in Vietnam')! The other half were all a new type of bear concept called 'Flattie' - which honestly, looked as if a Teddy Bear was put under a steamroller.

There was absolutely no decent 'made in USA' option that we could buy. As I looked at others around me, including all the children, everyone was making a beeline for the 'imported' options, as they looked more like teddy bears and less like flattened pancakes.

Worse, there was a 'charity' bear (buy 1 and they give another to the local fireman's association or something similar). I was quite impressed and thought I'll get one of those - only to find that they were also not made in USA!

I mean, why promote the company as "made in USA" when half the options are not so and the ones available look nowhere like teddy bears? Calling them 'exchange students' and 'imported' does not make it any better or glorified. It's still not made in USA.

I still pressed forward and picked up a 'flattie' hoping that when stuffed it'll look somewhat like a bear - no dice. It still was as flat (esp. the nose/mouth area) as it was put under a steamroller.

At the end of the day, I walked back with a heavy heart, light wallet (the 'imported' ones were the same price as the 'local' ones), and a flattened bear - not the feeling I was hoping for. I am sad that yet another 'local' company has succumbed to the globalization.

UPDATE: A day after I posted the blog, Wendy from the company was kind enough to respond to the post and clarify some of my statements. As she mentions, the issue I had was mainly with the "friend for life" section of the factory and not the entire store itself. There are definitely a lot of authentic bears to choose from. It also appears that the 'flatties' are available only in the store and not elsewhere. I am definitely very impressed with the courtesy of the staff as well as their professionalism and wish them the very best in future. Oh, did I also mention that all teddy bears have a 'life-time' guarantee (except if you put your teddy in a dryer)?! That's something you don't see anywhere else.

Impact of non-immigrant workers on the developing nation

Earlier, I mentioned how a healthy influx of non-immigrant works can actually be beneficial to a developed nation. So, how does this impact the nation on the other end - the developing nation?

Once again, it has its benefits and drawbacks, and I feel that the drawbacks this time outweigh the benefits. The benefit is mainly two fold: One, as most developing countries tend to have a population growth higher than what they can sustain, the reduction in the population can help reduce the burden a bit. However, this is not necessarily entirely beneficial, as the population that is going out is one that can help improve the economy of the nation than be a burden, as most tend to be the law-abiding, tax-paying kind. Second, those who do decide to make their fortunes abroad tend to send back quite a bit of cash back to their families back home, there by increasing the foreign currency reserves of the country and also improving the purchase power of the families, which in turn, can improve the economy.

However, the downside is fairly significant. As I mentioned earlier, most of those who do go out to find better opportunities tend to be more law-abiding and tax-paying and hence, the nation tends to lose the tax income from them. Moreover, they also tend to be better educated than the average citizen and the nation as a result, loses good leaders and entrepreneurs who would've otherwise helped improve indigenous companies.

So, what can a nation do to prevent this 'brain drain'? To answer this, we must first understand why people tend to move outside their home country in the first place and take steps to fix those issues. While there is a percent of folks who want to go to another country due to some connections they already have or just because of plain curiosity, the following, I believe, are the more common reasons:

1. Perception of better social infrastructure (aka quality of living) - be it roads, houses, basic facilities, or government interactions, the developed countries have a better system than the developing nations. While corruption and mismanagement is there in every nation, it tends to be less when it is the closest to the typical citizen in most cases. Police do their job regardless of the stature of the person or his connections; electricity and water is available without having to run to multiple government branches; work generally gets done without bribery.
   
2. Perception of better education - while the school system in many developed countries are no better than those of developing nations, the higher education is significantly better. This could primarily be due to the healthy interaction between companies and universities. Most professors get grants from companies/government to do research and even develop some projects. Such a mechanism is not there in developing countries, where universities are essentially seen as extension to schools.
3. Perception of better freedom - both men and women tend to feel that there is generally better freedom to say and do things in developed nations. This could be politics such as criticizing the government for inaction or social behavior such as morality, dress code, etc.
   
4. Perception of better opportunities - the capitalist nature of developed countries tends to foster competition. The growth of IT also has made it easy for someone with one background to easily switch to another. Till a decade or so back, it was very difficult for an Mechanical Engineer to become an Electronics Major. People were typically put in silos and it was increasingly hard for them to break the mold. Thanks to IT in part, this has changed in the recent years, and more and more opportunities are coming up for fresh graduates. However, the issue still persists outside the IT industry.

In order to stem the 'brain drain', I feel that a nation that is truly interested in protecting its intellectual property must address these concerns.

While the purchasing power of the middle class citizens has increased enabling them to buy cars that they could only dream of in the past, the transport infrastructure has not caught up, resulting in major gridlocks, which in turn, is affecting the overall health of the nation. While IT has made leaps and bounds, the network is still significantly inadequate. One of the pleasant surprises that I got when I went back to India a few years back (first time after the Globalization) was the ease at which one could get a gas connection or a telephone. What used to take a year or two is now happening in a week. Things definitely have improved, but the road is still very long.

While there are way more universities and colleges than used to be a decade back, the quality of education has not improved significantly. In fact, it has gone down, thanks to numerous 'wealthy' individuals opening a college for making more money than for imparting better education. The evil of 'management quota' and 'reservation' still exists. What is urgently needed is a merit system (with economic support - such as scholarships) and a healthy involvement of businesses. This would not only bring the much needed cash to the education system, but also better prepare the students for job opportunities once they graduate.

India has always prided in being a democratic and secular country, where every citizen has fundamental rights of speech and worship. However, in the recent years, fundamental groups of all religions have cropped up and taken the role of 'moral' police. This is a very dangerous trend, which, if not cropped at the bud, would only lead more people to leave the country than stay back. A strong action needs to be taken to ensure that moral policing does not happen. India has survived for centuries without requiring moral policing and has withstood invasions from Mughal and British empires without losing its core values and without a need for a moral police.

While the IT industry has helped significantly in enabling fresh graduates to get better opportunities not just in IT but also in related industries such as commerce, there are still other areas like arts and literature that are languishing due to lack of support. While most political parties take up a language issue in one form or the other, none seem to be genuinely interested in protecting and promoting the indigenous languages and cultures. This must change for arts and literature to flourish along with technology and provide the much needed balance to the system.

These measures, I feel, would greatly help a developing nation, be it India or China, to compete fairly and healthily with developed nations such as USA and UK, and hopefully make the world a better place.

Impact of non-immigrant visas on a developed nation

In the last post, I showed the most common path that is taken by a non-immigrant worker (typically in the skilled jobs category such as IT) towards better life and opportunity in USA. The question then, is "How does this impact the country - Is it good or bad?" The question gets raised pretty much on a frequent basis, not surprisingly coinciding either with an election or with an economic downturn.

I feel that there are more benefits than risks, especially in this specific segment (temporary visas for skilled workers), and contrary to popular belief, I would argue that it actually benefits the economy than hurt it. Here's how.

B1 Visas
In case of B1 visas, where people come in for a short assignment, typically lasting no more than 3 months, there is some benefit and no real loss. While those folks tend to spend some money by buying gifts, they tend to conserve as much money as possible. It's mainly because the exchange rate is quite high ($1 = Rs. 48).

H1 Visas
The real benefit comes in H1 and to an extent, L1 visas. People in these visas tend to stay for a longer term - typically 3-6 years for a H1 visa and 2 or more years for an L1 visa. When a person comes in for a such a relatively long-period, he needs to set up a base here.

Accommodation and Travel
That means getting an apartment, furnishing it, buying essentials, getting a car, etc. All this contributes to the country's economy. Moreover, now that he is staying for a longer term, the tendency is to travel and explore the country with his friends/colleagues/family. This has a fairly significant impact on the American tourism, as can be seen at crowds gathered at Niagara Falls around national holidays! There is a joke that an Indian can find his long-lost friend or cousin if he visits Niagara Falls on Independence Day!

Marriage and Travel
This inclination for tourism only increases when the person gets married. This happens more often than not because people who tend to come in to USA on an F1 or sometimes even an H1 are young adults aged 20 - 30, and tend to get married around 25-35, when they get staffed in a relatively stable project. This change in the lifestyle once again contributes fairly to the American economy.

Child Birth
The next big expense comes few more years down the road when the family size increases. A new kid comes with its own expenses, often more than their parents! This again contributes to the economy.

Note that the typical downside of immigration such as potential increase in crime, uninsured medical expenses, etc. are not applicable here, as most tend to fall under the middle to upper-middle class with an average annual income of around $60,000 - $100,000 and they are all insured by their employers for the most part.

I have seen that a typical non-immigrant family tends to save less or at most same as what they would have, had they been back home. While the material possessions to tend to increase significantly compared to their counterparts back home, the overall savings remains the same.

On top of all this, one thing that I find most interesting is that H1 visa holders have to pay Social Security Tax. As you know, SS tax is intended for care post-retirement, which H1 holders are not eligible for, unless they stay here and get citizenship. Moreover, a country such as India does not have a bilateral agreement to convert the SS tax contributions to a PF (Provident Fund) contribution - the Indian equivalent of an SS tax. So, if the person decides to head back after the H1 term ends, their contribution goes to the SS pool, benefiting the rest of the citizens (or at least that's how I understand it).

There are a number of other intangible benefits as well. For example, as most H1s have kids no more than 3 years old, they do not place a burden on the educational system. Rather, they contribute to the economy of the day-care agencies. Also, most families tend to fly-in their parents and in-laws to see the newborn and to generally show them around the country. This in turn, increases the tourism as well.

So far, there are only positive. So, where's the negative? The biggest complaint is that an influx of non-immigrant workers will deprive the citizens off their opportunities for same jobs. However, I do not believe this is true. The same hue and cry existed when offshore development started. People feared that all IT work will go to developing countries. 5 years down the road, we are yet to see that happen. I believe that more than depriving people of their opportunities for jobs, I see this as a shift in the type of skill set needed within the country.

Change in skill set
In most developing countries, the educational system emphasizes rote learning and analytic work as opposed to creative work. As a result, people from these countries are excellent in analytical skills and task-oriented jobs. However, the same advantage also makes them poor leaders. The lack of emphasis on creativity makes them less effective managers, leaders, and entrepreneurs. This is where the American workforce shines, and this is where they can continue to get more work.

The exceptional few who are good leaders use the free market in this country to set up shop, which in turn, provides opportunities for a number of citizens.

So, in all, I think it is in fact, advantageous to have H1 workers at a constant rate than not have any. It bodes well for the country's economy, tourism, and development.

Green Card
The penultimate step in the quest for citizenship is permanent residence (or Green Card). This makes the non-immigrant worker effectively an immigrant and helps them in getting some of the benefits enjoyed by citizens. The children also would have grown up by now and get incorporated into the educational system. The influx of the analytic-oriented kids into a creative system can help bring a better balance to the overall educational system as well and foster healthy competition.

Moreover, most green card holders now have to upgrade their lifestyle and tend to buy a house (and spend more money on house maintenance!), which again is a boon to the economy.

Bottomline: Having a reasonable influx of non-immigrant workers can be healthy for a developed nation both in terms of economy and in terms of keeping it in its toes. This influx should be considered as a shift in the work force and not as a replacement.

Now that we have seen how a developed country actually gains a lot more than it loses due to non-immigrant workers, you may wonder "Who loses?" After all, nature is more or less balanced and if one wins, someone else must lose - and that would be the developing nation! In my next blog, I hope to explain what the developing nation loses, and how it can potentially avoid the loss.

American dream for the non-immigrant worker

This is a slightly longer post - so much so that I am splitting it across three posts, all related.

Heated debates about worker visas tend to appear typically during times of trouble and during election. While the demand for H1-B (temporary worker) visas in USA seem to have slowed down (at last count, there are still 20,000 visas up for grabs this year), I think the current economic crisis and even job downturn seems like a good time to think about the impact of these visas on the US economy.

As a foreigner from a developing nation who came to USA for better opportunities and growth, I can relate to the standard (sometimes even stereotypical) path that a non-immigrant worker takes in search of a better life. While I focus on India and US, as I relate to them personally, I believe the same applies to the visa relationship between any developing nation and developed nation.

I have tried to depict the typical road taken by a non-immigrant worker to achieve the elusive 'American Dream' in the picture below.


The journey typically begins with a (hopefully) bright, young individual who wants better education and career that he does not believe might be available in his home country. As a result he applies for an F1 (education) visa, hopefully gets a grant or scholarship, and comes to USA.

After 2 years of studies, he gets a Master's degree, gets an EAD (Employment Authorization Document) to work in the country for up to a year. In this time period, he gets a job and gets the company to sponsor his H1-B (temporary worker) visa, which would allow him to work for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6 years.

After a few years, some may opt to get back to their home country for personal reasons, which may include caring for aging parents, personal choice, or a stronger social group in the home country. Others continue down the road.

The willingness to stay on course may be strengthened by marriage (want to have some quality time with the wife and show her around the natural and artificial beauties in the country). Another boost might be the birth of a child.

Eventually, the individual may apply for a Green Card through his company. While the card is being processed, there may be other boosts such as buying a house which would further extend the willingness to pursue the eventual dream.

The Green Card (permanent residence) eventually arrives, giving more flexibility to the individual in terms of career growth, which may extend his stay for a few more years. In the meanwhile, the kid(s) may grow up to be young adults. At this point, another reality check happens. Torn between the comfort of the new life and the culture in which he lived (which often may conflict with the culture he currently experiences), he may decide to go back after all. Factors such as economic prosperity in the home country may aid in this decision.

Another check might be the perception (or reality) of a glass ceiling in the work environment - he may feel that he is not getting anywhere in his career and may opt to move back, hopefully getting a more senior position based on his experience in USA.

Alternately, he may decide to stay on and after 5 years, may opt for citizenship. At this point, his 'American Dream' has come true - he has a home, kids, and good income... or, has it?

All this sounds great; some might even say, obvious. However, what about this path hampering the citizens of the developed country, who are otherwise robbed off their own dream because of these newcomers? Does it really hurt them? Why the perception? That's for the next post.

Americanization of Cricket

Born and raised in India, I am a big fan of the sport of Cricket, not unlike how most Americans swear by Baseball. As of my colleagues told me earlier, Baseball, despite its boring pace, is the favorite of most Americans because it's a part of their childhood. Same goes with cricket in India. My fondest memories are of me playing in the streets with stumps drawn on the wall, playing with tennis balls, and occassionally dipping my hands into the open gutters to get the ball that went out of bounds.

When I came to America first, the first thing that struck me the most was the complete commercialization and capitalism of the sports industry. Almost all sports are governed by money than by talent (some would argue that the money is given for the talent, but I don't agree fully with that). 

As a cricket fan, I always knew who to root for - India at an international level and Tamilnadu at a national level. Loyalty was more to the geography than an individual. While I admired exceptional sportsmen from other countries, my loyalty was always unwavering and didn't have to, since the players stuck to the geography. In contast, I did not see any strong reason for loyalty in sports in USA, because players keep shifting between teams, except possibly at the college level. If I root for NJ for example in one season, I find that half the players are dispersed in other teams in the next season because they got better lucrative contracts.

As with all other sectors, it looks like the wave of captialism and American values has hit the Indian sports industry, and like in most cases, they have taken the worst of the wave than the best. Yes, I am talking about the T20 matches and the IPL league. You have everything there now - half-time shows, cheerleaders, and not to forget - million-dollar contracts. BCCI - the cricket board in India is swimming in cash and they want more. Their interest seems to be in getting more money than improving the sport or building talent within the country. 

I am not saying that the new format is bad - it's short, and has lots of thrills. But my gripe is more about the complete disregard they have for the county cricket - the Ranji trophy matches - which aims to build regional teams that would eventually make it into the national team. Why can't they both co-exist together? Why can't the Ranji trophy be made as interesting as the T20 matches or as prestigious as the British county cricket? Is it because they cannot make money by building new talent? Possibly, but I don't think it's a valid reason. You can bring the same T20 format into country cricket (which is roughly what the IPL format is like, but not quite). 

The short-term gains seems to be clouding the judgement of long-term stability, much like the Indian polity. And no one seems to be looking back into history and see how that attitude has fared till now.