If there's no need to market a product as America-first, then why is there a need to market these as India-first? Like they said in the article, the products made won't just help India.
Because Google is trying to build the monopoly they have in America in India as well. They are specifically targeting the market they hope to gain capture in.
A lot of users may prefer a locally-branded competitor because they feel it is properly tailored to their needs and culture. (I've specifically heard Yandex understands the interests and needs of Russian-speaking users better than Google, which is not a shock.) Presumably, specifying "India-first" is intended to convey that these apps are developed specifically for Indian users and their needs.
> Presumably, specifying "India-first" is intended to convey that these apps are developed specifically for Indian users and their needs.
Oh, I understand this completely. It makes perfect sense for Google to focus on an emerging market to become a monopoly there, and I feel it's a fantastic strategy.
What I'm more curious about is why an Indian-first focus is met with fanfare and acceptance, while an American-first focus is met with derision and contempt against something anti-globalist, and that these two opinions often come from the same group of people. I just find it an interesting dichotomy.
Presumably the same way saying you're a "women's rights activist" makes you fighting for a good cause and saying you're a "men's rights activist" makes you a sexist, and saying "black lives matter" is fighting for a good cause, but saying "white lives matter" makes you a Nazi.
The language is preloaded with a lot of existing conceptions about the state of the world currently, and the sort of people who use each set of terms.
Not really America-first, but western world first definitely. Nothing about Google’s products screams USA, and they have more users outside the USA than inside it.