SamuraiBlue
Captain
Well that is what the British told a certain colony on the other side of the Atlantic 300 years ago and look how it turned out.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Well that is what the British told a certain colony on the other side of the Atlantic 300 years ago and look how it turned out.
Ultra
Junior Member
Okay, I just watched that.
I still don't see how that can be called innovative. None of the systems in there are invented by Chinese, nor the application and the use of it.
It reminds me of the Japanese FeliCa system, except it is far more backward - it needs to scan a QR code in order to pay, pause, and wait for verification. The system also seems rife for exploits. As the vendor only has a QR code to scan, the verification comes solely from the "buyer"s mobile.
The buyer just need to generate a "credible" looking payment screen to exploit the seller.
The Japanese already started using the far more advanced system back more than 10 years ago.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Yours is an apples and oranges comparison. I say that because Falklands was and is British territory, so Argentina invaded a sovereign state with no justifiable provocations. Taiwan, on the other hand, is recognized by most nations, including Japan, as part of China. Since China hasn't agreed to Taiwan independence, the people living in that Chinese Province may only leave the union through armed revolution against a great power with credible nuclear deterrence.
The bottom line is China isn't Argentina, and Taiwan may only achieve independence with amicable agreement from China.
Mods: Please remove if this is deemed off-topic.
Many people have a narrow view of innovation, invention, and technology. The dictionary defines to "innovate" as "to introduce something new; make changes in anything established." The word "innovate" comes from the Latin "innovātus, past participle of innovāre, to renew, alter, equivalent to in + novātus (novā(re) to renew, verbal derivative of novus new + -tus past participle suffix)."
All that music is is a rearrangement of notes. A composer came up with a groundbreaking new work. He didn't invent a new musical scale or any new instruments. A writer came up with a pioneering new novel. He didn't invent a new language, or coin any new words. A chef comes up with a refreshing new dish. He didn't invent any new ingredients or cooking methods. He combined existing ingredients and cooking methods, often from different cultures. If anything, combining and altering existing things is the essence of innovation and invention. The vast majority of patents are about combining existing components and methods.
Indeed, throughout history, the best inventions have been those that utilize existing things. Some of the worst inventions have been precisely those where everything was new. This is often the reason they didn't take. People tend to resist change, and completely new things are often difficult or even impossible to understand.
Apple has already been mentioned. It has perfected the methodology. Take existing, matured components and technologies, combine them into well-made products with an unprecedented level of "niceness".
Facebook is another example. Before facebook there was MySpace and Friendster, and well before that, Goecities. Many people had personal and family mini-facebooks. It's nothing but an online college facebook, literally. Yet, Facebook is an innovation, as was MySpace and Friendstar. Having "relationship status" as a field is genius.
Micropayments and microloans are two other examples. The core ideas are nothing new. They are extensions of the existing concepts of payments and loads to allow far lower amounts to be transacted. But, if done properly, it makes a real difference in the lives of hundreds of million, perhaps billions, of people.
In a number of African countries, mobile banking is done via SMS text messages. That it uses an existing system is precisely what makes it good. For many people who never even had bank accounts, this changed their lives in fundamental ways.
Back to China. Take the example of a girl who sells peanuts out of a cart on the side of a street. All she wants is to sell peanuts and take payments. Before, she could only take cash. Anybody who didn't have cash or prefered to pay some other way, she would lose as a customer. And cash comes with problems. Someone might rob her, she had to go someplace to deposit it, and so on. She is not going to get any kind of terminal to process things. She can't afford it. The fees alone would wipe out her margin. And seemingly trivial things (for those of us fortunately enough to be from the developed world) like having to plug the terminal in somewhere would be a big problem.
With a system like WeChat (just an example), after applying for an account, all she needs is the printout of the QR code. She doesn't even need to have a smartphone with her. This last point is genius. She will likely get more business if people talk about her online, and so on. That it doesn't require new hardware is precisely what's so innovative about the system. It can be deployed, at massive scale, almost instantly. Several hundred million, indeed up to more a billion people in China alone are turned into cashless mobile merchants. And all this is done without any new physical infrastructure, or any top-down system imposed by the government. Potentially this can be deployed, at equally massive scale, elsewhere. The lives of billions of people can be changed.
Here in Silicon Valley the mobile landscape in China, and WeChat and Tencent in particular, are being studied very intensely. Questions are being asked by very serious people and companies. Why is it that Tencent can monetize things so well? It has per-user revenue several times higher than that of Facebook, all without relying heavily on advertising.
At the end of the day, whether some people halfway across the world think something is innovative or not makes absolutely no difference. Lives, by the hundreds of millions, are being changed, for the better. That's all that matters.
Many people have a narrow view of innovation, invention, and technology. The dictionary defines to "innovate" as "to introduce something new; make changes in anything established." The word "innovate" comes from the Latin "innovātus, past participle of innovāre, to renew, alter, equivalent to in + novātus (novā(re) to renew, verbal derivative of novus new + -tus past participle suffix)."
All that music is is a rearrangement of notes. A composer came up with a groundbreaking new work. He didn't invent a new musical scale or any new instruments. A writer came up with a pioneering new novel. He didn't invent a new language, or coin any new words. A chef comes up with a refreshing new dish. He didn't invent any new ingredients or cooking methods. He combined existing ingredients and cooking methods, often from different cultures. If anything, combining and altering existing things is the essence of innovation and invention. The vast majority of patents are about combining existing components and methods.
Indeed, throughout history, the best inventions have been those that utilize existing things. Some of the worst inventions have been precisely those where everything was new. This is often the reason they didn't take. People tend to resist change, and completely new things are often difficult or even impossible to understand.
Apple has already been mentioned. It has perfected the methodology. Take existing, matured components and technologies, combine them into well-made products with an unprecedented level of "niceness".
Facebook is another example. Before facebook there was MySpace and Friendster, and well before that, Goecities. Many people had personal and family mini-facebooks. It's nothing but an online college facebook, literally. Yet, Facebook is an innovation, as was MySpace and Friendstar. Having "relationship status" as a field is genius.
Micropayments and microloans are two other examples. The core ideas are nothing new. They are extensions of the existing concepts of payments and loads to allow far lower amounts to be transacted. But, if done properly, it makes a real difference in the lives of hundreds of million, perhaps billions, of people.
In a number of African countries, mobile banking is done via SMS text messages. That it uses an existing system is precisely what makes it good. For many people who never even had bank accounts, this changed their lives in fundamental ways.
Back to China. Take the example of a girl who sells peanuts out of a cart on the side of a street. All she wants is to sell peanuts and take payments. Before, she could only take cash. Anybody who didn't have cash or prefered to pay some other way, she would lose as a customer. And cash comes with problems. Someone might rob her, she had to go someplace to deposit it, and so on. She is not going to get any kind of terminal to process things. She can't afford it. The fees alone would wipe out her margin. And seemingly trivial things (for those of us fortunately enough to be from the developed world) like having to plug the terminal in somewhere would be a big problem.
With a system like WeChat (just an example), after applying for an account, all she needs is the printout of the QR code. She doesn't even need to have a smartphone with her. This last point is genius. She will likely get more business if people talk about her online, and so on. That it doesn't require new hardware is precisely what's so innovative about the system. It can be deployed, at massive scale, almost instantly. Several hundred million, indeed up to more a billion people in China alone are turned into cashless mobile merchants. And all this is done without any new physical infrastructure, or any top-down system imposed by the government. Potentially this can be deployed, at equally massive scale, elsewhere. The lives of billions of people can be changed.
Here in Silicon Valley the mobile landscape in China, and WeChat and Tencent in particular, are being studied very intensely. Questions are being asked by very serious people and companies. Why is it that Tencent can monetize things so well? It has per-user revenue several times higher than that of Facebook, all without relying heavily on advertising.
At the end of the day, whether some people halfway across the world think something is innovative or not makes absolutely no difference. Lives, by the hundreds of millions, are being changed, for the better. That's all that matters.
Wechat is twice the size of paypal. Alipay is four times bigger than wechat. Alibaba has the biggest online e-business infrastucture in East and Southeast Asia. Chinese tourists spent over US $500 billionsFor proof.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
Wrong answer since I was talking about the United States of America which declared their independence nearly 300 years ago and the French acknowledged their claim and assisted in their independence.
Here is something about democracy that people needs to understand. If the ordinary citizen wants it and declares independence then other nations can and will accept their declaration in which case the nations are not strapped to old treaties.
Blackstone
Brigadier
The French acknowledged US claims against King Geroge III because it suited its national interests. The United States of today would, also for national interest reasons, deter Taiwan from declaring independence. In both cases, national interests is king.
So, would Tokyo allow Okinawa independence if majority of the island vote to leave? Should the US protect the new Republic of Okinawa if Japan use force to prevent independence?
To add to that. Facebook messenger is a "shanzai" (山寨) version of wechat. Facebook is trying to emulate wechat where a lot of businesses are done within the wechat ecosystem
All the systems mentioned are innovative, they are all tailored to their primary users and environments which are all different thereby the differences in implementation leading to success in their primary markets but varying success in secondary markets.
Success in secondary markets are not necessarily reflection of innovation but rather either the ability to adapt to secondary markets or the ability to shape secondary markets to adapt to the existing product or service.
Ultra
Junior Member
This will never fly in western world, as the one-sided verification system is rife for exploit.
In fact, once this system become more well understood, I am certain it will get exploited everywhere.
What they going to do after first phase of this QR code micro-payment system when they get hit by a wave of scammers will be to enable mobile-third party-mobile micro-payment system, effectively, the merchant (let's say that peanut seller girl) will use their mobile phone as the terminal (almost everyone have a mobile phone in China) while the phones communicates with each other each mobile still sends verification codes to a third party for dual layers verification. And that is basically what the current modern mobile micro-payment system is.
So China is basically lagging behind by at least a generation or more.
Last edited: