AI chips not ice creams - minister's dig at Indian start-ups sparks debate
India's Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal's recent comments about the country's start-up ecosystem have sparked a massive debate on social media and evoked strong reactions from some entrepreneurs.
At the second edition of Startup Mahakumbh, a government-led start-up conclave last week, Goyal seemed to take a hard look at India's consumer start-ups as he urged entrepreneurs to explore more innovations in technology in order to help the country progress.
Poking fun at the rise of food delivery apps, artisanal brands and online betting apps in the country, he compared them with the innovations being made by the "other side", which many took to mean China.
He said that while "they" were making leaps in machine learning, robotics and building "next-gen factories that can compete with the rest of the world", India's start-ups were still largely focussed on lifestyle products like gluten-free ice creams.
His comments sparked a flurry of reactions from India's top innovators, with some arguing that he was only encouraging creators to be more ambitious and others calling it an unfair criticism of the start-up ecosystem, a major contributor to the country's economy.
To be sure, Goyal also praised the pace at which new businesses were popping up in the country, hailing India as the third-largest start-up ecosystem in the world. He also urged Indian investors to do more to support Indian creators.
But he seemed to want to see more happen, and faster.
"We have to be willing to evolve and learn. [If] we want to be bigger and better, then we have to be bolder and we should not fight shy of the competition," the minister said.
At one point, he asked the audience - brimming with entrepreneurs and investors - "Do we want to make ice creams or [semiconductor] chips?"
Aadit Palicha, co-founder of the quick-commerce app Zepto, was quick to call out the minister.
In a post on X, he argued that it was consumer internet companies like his that have led innovation in the technology space, in India and globally.
Can tech stop India wasting so much of its harvest?
The private firms helping India aim high in space
He pointed out that Amazon - originally a consumer internet company - had scaled cloud computing while the big players in AI today, like Facebook and Google, were once consumer internet companies too.
He urged Indian investors to support consumer internet companies so that they can grow and use their profits for making more ambitious innovations.
Mohandas Pai, a prominent angel investor, told news channel Economic Times Now that there was a dearth of capital investment in deep-tech start-ups from the government and private players.
He explained that investors made a beeline for lifestyle-focused start-ups because they gave quick returns.
Deep-tech innovations take a long time to develop and require expensive infrastructure. "People are not willing to take long-term risks. We need long-term 'patient' money [for deep tech start-ups to thrive]," he said.
He also said that regulatory curbs on foreign investments in Indian start-ups were hurting innovation.
"Deep tech start-ups also struggle to find a market," he added, citing the example of an Indian firm that recently pioneered a quick-charging battery for buses but found no takers for its product.
Many social media users also spoke about the challenges they faced when they tried to start their own tech businesses.
Some said they struggled to get loans, others highlighted high import taxes on certain foreign raw materials and equipment, while some others spoke about unnecessary red tape that made getting documents and approvals a nightmare.
But some entrepreneurs also defended the minister, saying that his comments were well-intentioned and a much-needed reality-check for the start-up ecosystem.
Vironika S, founder of edtech app Proxy Gyan, agreed that India's future leadership of the global economy depended on breakthroughs in AI and semiconductors but added that there were realistic barriers to doing so and that the government could help by easing them.
Indian investor Kushal Bhagia said in a post on X that Goyal was right about ambition and a lack of deep tech start-ups in India. "We just don't meet enough founders who are doing something truly deep tech or going after big ambitious problem statements," he said.
He attributed this to India's tech talent leaving the country to work in US firms and to a dearth of deep-tech founders for people to learn from and be inspired by.
The minister's comments also got the media analysing different journeys of Indian and Chinese start-ups.
Journalist Abhijeet Kumar wrote in the Business Standard newspaper that in 2023, just 5% of Indian start-up funding went into deep-tech sectors, compared to 35% in China. He also pointed out how Beijing actively promoted high-tech innovation - in 2024, it had slashed $361bn in taxes and fees for high-tech firms, including $80.7bn in research and development deductions.
In an editorial published on Monday, the newspaper also noted that India's start-ups are more consumption-driven, focused on using technology to solve local problems at scale rather than global ones by creating path-breaking foundational models.
It pointed out that India currently had 4,000 deep-tech start-ups and that this number was expected to jump to 10,000 by 2030 and quoted a Nasscom report which said that India's deep tech-start-ups attracted $1.6bn in funding in 2024, marking a 78% year-on-year increase.
But there's still a long way to go.
"As the deep-tech race intensifies globally, it is clear that India will have to do a lot to catch up with these countries," the editorial said, adding that Goyal's comments should "serve as a call to action" for start-ups and investors and also for the government.
"This can include setting up deep-tech innovation funds, building strong academia-start-up bridges and offering incentives for faster developments in hardware, AI, biotech and clean energy," it said.
Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
24 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
OTTAWA - Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025.
Tom's Guide
26 minutes ago
- Tom's Guide
AI on phones feels too much like homework — and Apple should use iOS 26's redesign to fix that
Tech companies, especially the ones that make and sell phones, have been telling us how important AI is for several years, and offering a range of new AI-powered features that promise to make our lives easier. But despite promising that, it seems a bunch of those companies forgot the most important thing about new features — making sure people can actually find and use them. As someone who's spent a great deal of time reviewing new phones, nothing irritates me more than being told about new AI features and then having to do a bunch of research to figure out how to access them. Even Apple, a company that has made its own AI suite a lot more transparent, is guilty of this in some regard. And since iOS 19 (or iOS 26) is set to redesign the entire Apple ecosystem, WWDC 2025 is a chance for the company to make AI feel less like homework and transform it into something a lot simpler and more intuitive. I'll preface this with an admission that not all AI features are difficult to find. If it involves going through some kind of voice assistant, like Google Gemini or Siri, then AI capabilities are literally only a voice prompt away. Similarly AI photo editing features, like Google's Magic Editor, have long been available in photo gallery apps, like Google Photos or Apple's equivalent. But at the same time, considering all these features have been around for quite some time, their location and functionality have already been ingrained into our collective memories. Plus, once you know about one of those features, you can often find similar ones in the same spot. Or in the case of voice assistants, physically ask it about the kind of things it can do. There's also a bunch of AI working in the background that the user doesn't actually need to initiate. All that processing that happens to your photos? AI has a hand there, just as it does in helping translate foreign languages for you. We've also seen AI applied to software that helps manage the battery and displays, to help phones run more smoothly and efficiently. None of this is the flashy AI that gets promoted in keynote speeches or TV commercials. It's the boring stuff that makes your phone run and perform better, without you even realizing what's going on. But if a company is trying to add some fuel to the AI hype train, the focus ends up on the new and showy AI features that look and sound good. The problem is phone makers haven't put much consideration into helping users find the darn things. One good example I've found in this area are specialist translation apps — ones that do more than Google Translate. Samsung's Interpreter Mode is the one I've noticed this with most recently, offering the ability to translate two-way conversations happening in two different languages. I know that it exists, Samsung has talked about it at great length, but looking at a Galaxy S25, it's nowhere to be seen. It's not in the app drawer, nor the home screen, nor is it one of the default apps in the Quick Settings menu. Instead you either have to use the search bar to find Interpreter Mode, or change the Quick Settings features to include it — which isn't ideal when you only have 6-8 slots to choose from. The more I think about Galaxy AI features Samsung has talked about, the more I realize that I also have no idea where they are. The same is true for Apple Intelligence, Google Gemini and the countless other AI features that have been added to smartphones in recent years. I made a point of criticizing this in my review of the Xiaomi 15 Ultra, but the problem is a lot more widespread than that — and it's like phone makers don't realize this is a complete hindrance. In the days when new AI features weren't all that common, this probably wouldn't be so bad. Users get the time to get to grips with new features as they arrive, and by the time the next big software update comes around it'll be second nature. But the sheer number of new AI features being added to phones, and with little communication on how they work, makes this much more difficult. The distinct lack of official guidance on how to use new AI features is definitely getting in the way of me wanting to use them — and I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way. If phone makers really care about us using AI features more regularly, then this needs to change. I've often spoken about my severe lack of interest when it comes to using AI on phones, and a big part of that is due to the fact it's usually so difficult to find any of the new features. Back in the day, Apple would proudly declare that "it just works," with die-hard fans parroting that line for several years. But when your new smartphone comes with homework, it certainly isn't passing the intuitiveness test with a particularly good grade. Apple's not the only party guilty of this, but with WWDC set to majorly shake up how Apple software works, be it on iPhone, Mac or another Apple product, it's in a position to try and help users use Apple Intelligence without doing a thesis-load of research first. Who knows, maybe making AI actually intuitive can help make up for all its AI missteps over the past year.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be "equitable." It said the contribution requirement is "inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues." Apple also said the regulator "acted prematurely" and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was "equitable." It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers "has any connection to news production" and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. "What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money," it said. "That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production." In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. "While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services," the broadcasters said. "For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade." A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. "The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants," the office of the attorney general said. "Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters." The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve "an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden." "This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament" and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025. Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
