On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
What you are advocating is to punish Safaricom for out innovating the competition.
Nope. Never said that. My email was super-clear.
What should they do? Pussyfoot around them? Let's be honest. Business is war. And anyone who thinks otherwise has not been in the trenches. Safaricom was not born dominant. And I dare say it won't remain dominant. I'm all for the policy to enforce interoperability which will take care of the 'noise' from vanquished competitors.
They can and should do whatever they want viz innovation. But to use your dominant position to stop others from innovating (aka a non-level playing field) is not only illegal but has proven to be detrimental to innovation in the long term. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_and_efficiency> This is the point that Airtel and a bunch of other people (including small startups, external companies and quangos) have made. Personally, I would also argue a dominant partner that is afraid of competition and uses underhanded tactics to get rid of them is not really the kind of company you want at the forefront, because it's a weak company. Strong companies out-innovate, they don't out-legislate or out-thug (term mine).
My other point is that the regulatory environment needs to take into consideration the global environment. Mpesa must be allowed space to grow beyond Kenya. Mpesa here means any Kenyan product.
Either I'm missing something or this point is orthogonal to the conversation. Who is stopping Mpesa (or any other Kenyan product) from being exported? AFAIK there's no embargo on the exportation of technology from Kenya on a global scale. Please elucidate.
We must emulate Japan & other Asian Giants. Policy and regulation must as a matter of course favor local companies.
You mean protectionism? Maybe, but this comes at a price -- namely fixed prices, *opolies, high-cost of goods, etc. It's debatable what's good for African markets at this point.
I make no apologies for this last point - Free markets are a dream perpetuated by foreign interests with the end game of dominance.
I am not sure I understand this point. In my understanding, there is no "foreign interest" in a free market, it's, by definition, a FREE MARKET! Perhaps you mean we're provided an illusion of a free market or you're referencing something else?
*Ali Hussein*
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 24, 2015, at 11:14 AM, "rsohan@gmail.com" <rsohan@gmail.com> wrote:
As Bob Collymore aptly put it - Being dominant is not a crime.
But using you dominance to stifle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law> competition <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.> and innovation <https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/The%20Case%20Aganst%20the%20UMG-EMI%20Merger.pdf> is <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/21/european-parliament-break-up-of-google>, which is the point that is being made.