Factors of production are used to create products and services towards fixing frictions in markets. One of those factors, Capital, is very catalytic in the operations of firms. Among other things, it makes it possible for you to acquire other factors you do not have (you need capital to pay workers, buy land, etc).

How, you have got the factors, including the Capital, but how do you launch a business? Join me today at Tekedia Mini-MBA; we will discuss today “How To Raise Fund and Launch a Business Venture”.

Meanwhile, we have since opened registrations for the next edition of Tekedia Mini-MBA which will start on Sept 9. Register and beat the early bird for big discounts here

Tekedia Mini-MBA: our product is knowledge. Register your employees.

Former Google Chairman and CEO, Eric Schmidt, has expressed concerns over Google’s declining competitive edge in artificial intelligence (AI), attributing it to the rise of remote work within the company.

Speaking at a Stanford University event in July, Schmidt highlighted the success of tech startup OpenAI—creator of the widely popular chatbot ChatGPT—as a sharp contrast to Google’s internal struggles. Schmidt pointed to the flexible work culture at Google, stating that an emphasis on work-life balance and remote work had caused the company to fall behind in the critical AI race.

“In full disclosure, Google prioritized work-life balance, going home early, and working remotely over winning,” Schmidt remarked. “Startups succeed because their teams work relentlessly.”

(He has since noted that he misspoke on this matter, considering that Google competitors run similar remote work policies as Google)

Schmidt’s candid comments reflect a growing frustration within Google and the tech community at large about the company’s slower pace in developing cutting-edge AI. He argued that startups thrive on the hustle culture, where employees are expected to work intensively to outpace their competitors. He indicated that companies like Google, which have embraced flexible work arrangements, may be losing their competitive drive.

“If you leave the university and start a company, you’re not going to allow people to work from home and come in one day a week if you want to compete against other startups,” Schmidt added bluntly.

Although Stanford University initially posted the video of Schmidt’s talk on YouTube, it has since been made private.

AI as a Critical Lifeline for Google’s Future

Schmidt’s remarks come at a crucial time for Google, as AI has become central to the company’s strategic direction and future growth. With artificial intelligence rapidly shaping the tech industry—from search algorithms and virtual assistants to cloud computing and autonomous systems—the pressure is mounting on tech giants to innovate at unprecedented speeds.

For Google, AI is not just an exciting frontier; it’s a lifeline. As a dominant leader in search and advertising, the company is increasingly under pressure to maintain its supremacy as competitors like OpenAI and Microsoft race ahead with breakthrough innovations in generative AI.

Google’s flagship AI tool, Gemini, faced significant public backlash earlier this year. In February, the tool was criticized for generating inaccurate images, including misrepresentations of historical figures by portraying them with the wrong racial or gender characteristics. This resulted in Google admitting that Gemini was “missing the mark.” Despite its initial ambitions to dominate the AI space, these missteps have raised questions about Google’s ability to maintain its leadership in a rapidly evolving industry.

The company also found itself at the center of a controversy when Gemini’s chatbot refused to generate images based on specific racial requests. When asked by The National Desk to produce a photo of a White person, the chatbot declined, responding: “I understand your desire for an image featuring a White person. However, I’m unable to fulfill your request to generate images based solely on a person’s race or ethnicity. My purpose is to create content that is inclusive and respectful of all individuals, and generating images based on race or ethnicity can contribute to harmful stereotypes and biases.”

Google’s response drew a mixture of support and criticism, with some applauding the company’s commitment to inclusivity, while others questioned the AI’s effectiveness and accuracy.

And DOJ Moves to Break Up Google

As Google grapples with its AI challenges, it also faces a fresh existential threat: regulatory scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently pursuing a high-profile antitrust case against Google, seeking to break up the tech giant’s grip on the search market. The case, which centers on Google’s dominance in search and online advertising, marks one of the most significant antitrust battles in tech history.

The DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit, filed in 2020, accuses Google of maintaining an illegal monopoly over search services, claiming that the company has leveraged its market dominance to stifle competition. The case has garnered widespread attention, with many drawing parallels to the landmark antitrust cases of Microsoft in the 1990s and Standard Oil in the early 20th century.

The case against Google argues that the company has used anti-competitive practices, such as exclusive deals with smartphone manufacturers to make Google the default search engine on mobile devices, effectively blocking rivals from gaining a foothold in the search market. If the DOJ is successful, it could force the breakup of Google’s search business from other lucrative divisions, a move that would significantly alter the company’s structure and potentially reduce its influence in the tech industry.

For Google, AI has become a focal point of its defense. The company has argued that innovations in AI could offer new opportunities for competitors to challenge its dominance, positioning AI as an open and competitive field where it no longer holds the same overwhelming advantage it once did in search. However, as companies like OpenAI and Microsoft surge ahead in AI advancements, Google’s position as a leader in this space is increasingly under threat.

What makes an item, or food product, African? Is it the nationality of the producer(s), the location of production, the source of raw materials, the brand name, or the intended consumers?

Imagine a product labeled “Plantain Fufu” with the brand name “AFRICAN DELIGHT”, it immediately creates the impression of African authenticity. Such slogans coupled with packaging that feature alluring African designs; colors and patterns reinforce this perception. Imagine also the confusion and disappointment evoked when upon consumption and closer scrutiny, one realizes that unconnected products have been packaged in place of plantain, and this product originates from Western Europe, not Africa. This is the sad reality of many Africans in the diaspora, surrounded by products claiming to be something from/of Africa, carrying African-sounding names, and yet containing nothing from/of the African continent.

Ms. Mobolaji, a Nigerian abroad, shares her experience shopping African products in Northern Europe; ‘I often buy a particular brand of ‘poundo-yam’ (also known as, pounded-yam flour) to prepare ‘Iyan’, and I choose this brand because it bears one of my native names. That connection with home appeals to me. It assures me that I am getting a taste of home. Not until recently, did I realize that the product was produced and packaged in Western Europe – it also did not contain any yam, only potato and rice, European and Asian staples. I was shocked.’

While various elements can connect a product to Africa or the African culture, the true authenticity of these products can be elusive, requiring broader discussions about what genuinely constitutes an African product. This African-specific branding raises serious questions about the exploitation of the African brand as a marketing strategy just to lure the huge African population in the Diaspora.

The African Diaspora is estimated to be over 300 million, and scattered across all the different parts of the world. One can rightly imagine, that this growing population corresponds with the expansion of the African market abroad. One expects that this should lead to an increase in the GDP contribution of the agricultural sector in Africa and the growth of its rural economies – since most food production is situated in rural communities. But this is not so and hasn’t been the case. Who is benefiting from the allure of the African Brand abroad?

The answer to this question is not far-fetched, as many of the popular brands of processed African foods in African stores abroad are produced and distributed by companies that aren’t African to begin with. Just industrious people, with knowledge and resources, taking advantage of a waiting market.

In a recent policy intervention webinar, a part series themed ‘Nigeria’s Agricultural Sector – Balancing domestic consumption needs with international export demands’, Olufemi Boyede, an international trade consultant recommended the concept of Export Production Villages. In practice, this would mean earmarking and supporting different locations (or communities) across the country for commercial production of crops and commodities for the export market.

This is not the case of bringing in private (or foreign) investors to produce on these lands, but rather enabling local people, indigenes, to access the resources and technological aids they need to consistently produce internationally desired quality and quantity. This focused and organized export-oriented production has great potential: it will make international trade easier; foreign buyers can easily locate raw material sources, aggregate, and ascertain product quality and standards. It could promote rural development, create jobs, make local livelihoods more resilient, increase forex earnings, and most of all strengthen the country’s currency.

Despite the many challenges and woes that plague most parts of the continent, the African people, home and abroad are proud of their culture and heritage and cherish their Afro identity and connections – including food. Hence there is a market to cater to, and in addition to the insight above, the following recommendations can help ensure that the African diaspora gets the genuine products they desire and that producing African countries get the revenue they deserve.

• The African diaspora needs to be attentive to details specified on African products when they shop; the country of origin or production, the company responsible for packaging and distribution, and product certifications out of African countries are some examples. Equipped with this knowledge, they can ensure that they are choosing genuinely African products, and supporting the African economy when they buy products labeled – ‘African’. Demand controls supply, and the more a brand is selected, the more local African stores will stock their shelves with that brand.
• African leaders should recognize that Africa is a brand, a trademark, and until they set standards and controls on the use of that brand as a label, anyone will exploit it. For this to happen all hands must be on deck – it required multi-contributory efforts to enact practicable and useful policies and regulations.
• Diplomatic relations should be mutually beneficial, not one-sided. And so, collaborating with international trade agencies to establish and enforce policies and regulations that enable the recuperation of revenues due to African countries from the African label should be put in place. For instance, stating that products must contain at least 50% African-sourced raw materials to carry or imply an African identity is one way to go.
• Many private organizations producing and selling locally within Nigeria for instance, are going the extra mile to showcase the traceability of their products, by including brief captivating stories of their procurement and supply chain systems on their product package or labels. Exporters should do likewise. With details like this on African products, Africans abroad can easily identify what is truly African and support such.