The “loaded” question was basically because
“taking risks” and “explosive growth” are not necessarily the only ways
or universally accepted to be even the right ways to run a business.
This is akin to comparing returns from a volatile stock and a bond
and jumping to the conclusion that the stock is innovating and bond is copying.
Of course, no one’s saying such things about stocks and bonds.
Maybe let’s also not say something similar about
2 companies with vastly different risk profiles? 
Atleast 2 issues i see with such thinking, are -
- comparing 2 companies with different risk profiles, and evaluating them using a single-metric.
- attributing without a clear link, the results of varying risk-appetite to technology innovation. (i.e. a non-sequitur)
Well, this is clearly not the case,
with clay courts and grass courts favoring players with vastly different skill-sets,
so much so that they usually end-up with different winners/champions on them.
Of course this is only disproving the above metaphor,
and disproving the metaphor doesn’t make a very strong case against the original assertion.
But, hopefully, it provides sufficient motivation to wade through the previous walls of text and links earlier this topic-thread, that go into detail trying to highlight similar issues with the original assertion about unjustifiably jumping to conclusion about companies and their innovation.
NOTE: Please note that i am not claiming the opposite is true.
All i am asserting is that
- the above chart
- and the simplistic statement following it
are not logically connected.
(yet? if possible, please do so. IMHO, unlikely. But if done, then something insightful.)
While the unjustified statement itself may or may not be true,
the information in the chart is not a sufficient or even a relevant justification.
The latter part is again not true.
What we have today is in part due to successfully innovating in execution.
Few recent examples/references
that also highlight some of the unique challenges that India faces
due to its position in the global economy.
Indian businesses and their western counterparts aren’t on equal footing to begin with,
due to varying access to low-cost capital and cost of labor, among a bunch of other things.
Also, it is not like other established countries are welcoming.
It is all adversarial relationships, against better established countries and businesses,
to slowly build-up one’s value against the wishes of others in the supply-chain
(one’s suppliers and one’s customers#)
and try to become a larger part of the global economy.
# - on a side-bar, IF all other things being equal,
“value extraction” is comparatively easier for a B2C with asymmetric power balance
between themselves and their individual customers.
And doubly so, if their suppliers are also individuals,
i.e. when the company is in the business of selling user “eyeballs”/attention.
To keep things short-er, let me wrap-up now with a metaphor -
Let’s not judge a fish by how well it can climb a tree.
PS: On a side-note, i see several other threads on the forum, with plenty of unsubstantiated claims.
Some about market movement in the near future based on some seemingly insightful observation, that would fall flat upon probing the underlying assumptions.
However, folks participating in such topic-threads seem to be happy to trade opinions back-n-forth. So, i am trying to refrain from highlighting logical-fallacies, or pushing for well-thought justifications in such topic-threads, as not everyone seems to be interested in such rigor.
@BB789 Thank you for continuing to engage in this discussion. 
