Slashdot Mirror
Uber and Didi Call a Truce In China With a $35 Billion Deal (recode.net)
Kara Swisher, reporting for Recode: Uber, which has been spending hugely in China over the last two years, has folded, striking a deal in which it will merge its Chinese operations with its main rival there, Didi Chuxing. Under terms of the deal, Uber China, the ride-hailing company's Chinese subsidiary, will be part of a larger Didi company valued at $35 billion. Uber gets a 20 percent stake in that -- Didi's previous valuation was $28 billion. That's a $7 billion value for upward of $2 billion that Uber has frittered away, um, spent there. In turn, Didi will invest in Uber at a valuation of almost $70 billion. That was about the value of Uber's last round. Now, everyone owns everyone everywhere.
If they managed to get a stake worth $7 billion from spending $2 billion, that $2 billion is arguably well spent, even if the actually places the money went look silly.
For everything that Uber is good for a rider. It's bad for the industry as a whole. It's driven down rates, but at the same time ignored regulations, driver pay, and uniform service. When you basically have a short and quick application, no significant back ground check because myself was approved to drive even before being approved by Checkr the company doing the background check. This sends up red flags in so many ways, and now Uber is raising the percentage they keep from rates all the while reducing rates. The question then becomes ,what kind of people is Uber attracting to drive for them? Like myself I am looking for some extra money but frankly I lasted a couple days with Uber and realized the benefits apply only to riders with Uber. Most drivers can't seem to even make minimum wage much of the time. We all complain about low wages until those low wages benefit us financially. I can't tell you how many Uber forum people said they hate being a Uber driver for lack of money. But will gladly use the service, even knowing how poorly drivers are paid.
If the taxi regulations are good for anything, it's keeping out slimeball business tactics like this.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
They surrendered and gave up control of their operations in China to a local company. Still think doing transnational business in China is a good idea?
Whenever China finds out that something you do is profitable, they'll sure find a way to wrest it from your hands. In the end, anything that's profitable in China has to be in Chinese hands, in one way or another. If nothing else, you'll be forced into a joint-venture with a Chinese "partner". With "partner" being something akin to being married in a shotgun wedding.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
same china that where helping some makes you liable so people just keep running the same person over.
Uber will work good there
In a different article it was called "ride-sharing".
Why don't you just call it what it really is - an unlicensed, unregulated taxi company.
China doesn't have 1% of the lawyers the US has (to China's detriment). Civil lawsuits just aren't even a consideration in everyday life.
Trump is right China forces you have to have them own parts of your company to be able to sell there. But we can't do the same hear.
The software behind the app is not that complex. An industry sponsored non-profit Uber where all the profits go to the drivers is what is called for. Paying these rent seeking leeches so much money that they have a $70 billion valuation is criminal. They software has driven down rates -- awesome for consumers of cab services. But its hurt drivers who now make less money. The solution isn't higher rates but removing the rent seeking middle man in between -- a non-profit Uber owned by the drivers.
you are a fucking retard
https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
That's a $7 billion value for upward of $2 billion that Uber has frittered away, um, spent there
Dear Editors,
Please keep your personal opinions out of the summaries you're writing. It degrades the quality of the experience here and interferes with rational discussion.
Thank you,
The Slashdot Readership
When Uber and Lyft stomped out of Austin like whiney, spoiled brats, the free market stepped in a started creating alternatives. One of them is a non-profit:
http://www.austinchronicle.com...
I haven't used it yet, but I like the idea of non-profit or B-Corps competing side by side with the for-profit companies.
-Chris
Oh, knock off that BS and read the actual ordinance and understand the circumstances under which it was passed.
1) Uber and Lyft did not move into Austin, demand to be exempt from existing law, and leave in a snit when they were told no. They were already operating in Austin for quite some time when this brand NEW law was imposed for the specific purpose of running them out of town.
2) There was a lot more in there than just the background check people were making a big deal about. They were restricted in providing service to "special events", required to conduct and report on vaguely defined "community outreach" events outside the scope of a for-profit business, and surrender access to their data to the city. There was also a cash grab.
3) The ordinance was specifically crafted NOT to apply equally to the legacy taxi corporations. It applied only to "Transportation Network Companies,", ie. Lyft and Uber only.
It was political corruption and regulatory capture at its worst. Uber and Lyft were not being "spoiled brats" in exiting the market. When their attempt to fight the legislation failed, exiting the market was the only rational choice. The bought-and-paid-for city council had picked the winner in that marketplace and even if the ridesharing companies had complied, all that would mean is that even more onerous legislation would be in the pipeline until they departed anyway.
Imagine all the people...
can tell you're a deluded Hillary voter.