Slashdot Mirror


When It Comes To China, Google's Experience Still Says It All (backchannel.com)

Uber's defeat by its local competitor in China was the latest of a string of such cases, and Google's experience trying to establish itself there is illustrative of the challenges facing all American tech companies that aspire to dominate in that market, writes reader mirandakatz. Steven Levy writes at Backchannel:Perhaps because its market share never rose high enough, Uber did not experience the brunt of China's regulation. Still, who's to say what would have happened if Uber had managed to outperform Didi? If Uber's market share topped fifty percent, would the government have sat by as a neutral observer? Would the Uber app start experiencing slowdowns? Would its drivers be stopped? Would airports welcome Didi cars and not Uber? My bet is that, mixed with disappointment at not winning the country, Uber executives might be feeling a bit relieved that such worries are now off the table. As it is, Uber has become one more casualty in China's other wall, a towering fortress of restrictions, regulations and unfair play that keeps down American internet companies.

11 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. reciprocity by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If US companies can't operate under fair rules in China, should Chinese companies be permitted to operate in the US without restrictions?
    We can still trade, but do we necessarily have to allow service oriented businesses operate on each other's soil?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:reciprocity by npslider · · Score: 5, Funny

      Allowing over a billion Chinese workers willing to earn far less to compete directly with higher paid Western workers sounds good to me. Every company out there would rather pay their employees well, than earn a greater profit through reduced payroll expenses, and every consumer would rather pay 3 times more for the same product because it is made in their home country.

    2. Re:reciprocity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say yes. Having an open, unrestricted economy benefits us. China just doesn't realize that yet.

      Do you have any serious actual real experimental evidence supporting this, or is this just an ideologically based belief?

    3. Re:reciprocity by npslider · · Score: 3, Funny

      Better learn to code in Chinese!

      Chi++ will be the new standard.

    4. Re:reciprocity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is not about open and unrestricted. It is about an even playing field. A Chinese company coming to the west mostly finds that even playing field. A western company going to China finds that he not only competes against his competitors but also against the Chinese state.

      There is no way this can be construed as benefiting the west. It does not and never will. It is unfair competition and it cannot endure if you want a thriving, open, unrestricted economy.
      It is just like one country throwing up tariff-walls and the country not . That is only good for one country.

  2. Unfair? by Zaelath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    America wouldn't know fair if it kicked them in the balls, what you're actually seeing is when you become number 2.

    Number 1 gets to decide what's fair.

    1. Re:Unfair? by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Spoken like someone who has zero knowledge of business in China.

      They do not allow wholly owned foreign subsidiaries, any investment must be at least 50% China owned. They do this to keep profits inside China and to rip off (borrow) technology for any company that does it. It's not just American companies, it is everyone.

      China's 1 billion potential customers is hard for companies to pass up. Exporting to China is very difficult because they will price you out of the market. Your option is to give up 50% of control or stay home.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:Unfair? by Ogive17 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Any manufacturing must be 50% Chinese partnership.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  3. Theory vs. Practice (Re:reciprocity) by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In theory "lopsided" trade where one side cheats is still beneficial to the more-open partner.

    But, it seems such formulas and simulations fail to account for or detect "emergent" side-effects, such as income inequality, and financial bubbles caused in part by one side building up cash from the imbalance. Bubbles still puzzle economic simulation experts.

    The simulation may predict that average GDP increases, which may technically be accurate, but most of the increase is flowing to the top 1%, not regular folks. This excess power allows them to buy the political system, giving us crap like the Citizen's United ruling, which in terms gives them even MORE influence, risking a slippery slope into a full-blown plutocracy.

    They can simulate consumer buying behavior to some extent, but so far not the related politics that affect everything in practice.

    They are using spherical cows.

  4. Regulatory enviornment is only a small factor by wickerprints · · Score: 3, Informative

    The overriding issue with doing business in China is corruption and intellectual property theft. In plain English, that means (1) the government runs on bribery, and (2) Chinese cultural values do not regard things like corporate espionage, patent infringement, bootlegging, and knockoffs, as being unethical. This is why non-Chinese companies tend to fail, because they allowed to enter the market only long enough until a Chinese company can copy their ideas and property.

    1. Re:Regulatory enviornment is only a small factor by johanw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Intellectual property" is an stupid "invention" that has gone too far and is reducing inventiveness. The Chinese are wise to ignore that bullshit.