Probably because it is perceived to be a fairly uninformed question. It's sort of like talking about the USPS potential insolvency and someone asking how many postmen will be replaced with gig economy workers.
As far as I'm aware, major leading American tech companies have never really exported jobs to India, it has been almost entirely companies that need mediocre quality work contracting out to companies that fill those contracts with workers from India or elsewhere. Without carefully developing an office, culture, and employee pipelines over 3-5+ years you carry extremely large risk outsourcing important work.
In many industries it's not uncommon to subcontract a service by a subcontractor which himself subcontract the same service to another subcontractor (usually cheaper).
In the end it is only a question of money!
Actually top american tech companies don't have to go directly to India to get cheaper workers but instead they call american subcontractor to get cheaper workers anywhere in the world. Even more with restricted green cards thanks to Donald TRUMP. :-)
It was right 10-15 years ago, but less so now. There's been a huge pushback on off-shore development in the past decade for a variety of reasons, mainly poor results, issues with time zone differences, and the negligible cost savings. Most of the big consulting firms we associate with off-shore contracting (like TATA) are supplying mostly on-shore (engineering) consultants to domestic companies (but maintaining services like help desk offshore).
Middle management got tired of having daily meetings at midnight or 6 AM, and it got too expensive to bring people over who were fine with doing so. The India job market got pretty tight around '14 or so, to the point where engineers were leaving jobs every 4-6 months for greener pastures. And even though the consulting companies are supposed to be in charge of KT, so that transitions don't impact the clients, the rate of change was just too high to maintain good quality.
This feels like a partial proxy question for Unix versus non-Unix development. Unix developers are, in my experience, consistently more interested in configuring their IDEs, which underlies many of the arguments for tabs over spaces.
As others have mentioned there is a large amount of expert knowledge to collecting and organizing extremely disparate data sets. There are also longstanding business relationships, lots across a lot of markets, and a reputation for great data security, that has many pricing sources and exchanges offering data almost exclusively through the terminal, and some folks putting their own data into the system. The risk with mishandling(making unavailable or available at unreliable/inconsistent times, for example) some of that data is just so high that 30+ years of reputation in some spaces is worth a (maybe perceived) premium.
I would argue they have established a sort of universal minimum threshold of information within the financial industry, across a ton of financial markets. This provides a certain amount of certainty/consistency within markets(really any sort of pseudo monopoly in a knowledge space does). Particularly in the news space, it sort of lets people assess to what degree they might have a competitive advantage by the degree to which their data is more accurate/earlier than that on the terminal/data side.
It seems they must be getting the data through agreement with the companies they're collecting the data on. I wonder where the line is drawn between what they're doing and commercialised insider trading.
