Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chinese Ride-Sharing Giant Didi Chuxing Picks Its First English-Speaking Nation: To Enter Australia on June 25 (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the aggressive-expansion dept.

From a report: Ever since outperforming Uber in its home base of China, speculation has mounted that ride-hailer Didi Chuxing would eventually branch out to the rest of the world. Didi's first launch in an English-speaking country comes on June 25, it was announced Thursday, when it'll start operations in Melbourne, Australia. The company has already begun recruiting local drivers. While you might not have heard of it, Didi is China's most popular ride-hailing service, and in 2016 absorbed Uber China in a deal worth around $35 billion.

41 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. English by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    They speak English in Australia??

    1. Re:English by lordlod · · Score: 3, Funny

      They speak English in Australia??

      The same language but all the words are pronounced backwards.

      Idid should do much better there than Rebu.

    2. Re:English by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      You're a narom.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:English by Mr0bvious · · Score: 1

      ?narom eht s'ohW

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    4. Re:English by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      They speak English in Australia??

      Nah, we stalk strine[1]

      ----

      [1] A homage to a book from the '60's .. LET STALK STRINE : A Lexicon of Modern Strine Usage

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:English by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      No! The words are pronounced upside down!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    6. Re: English by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Want rice with that car ride? Head rice.

  2. Can we not call them ride sharing? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    They're a taxi service skirting labor laws. Nothing about them has anything to do with sharing. It bothers me to see the way mega corps can so easily shape are narratives. Are we that dense?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Mr0bvious · · Score: 1

      On average, yeah.

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    2. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're a taxi service skirting labor laws.

      Didi is not Uber. In China, if you want a taxi, you can use Didi to hail it. Traditional taxis and "ride sharing" are integrated into a single service.

    3. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 2

      They're a taxi service skirting labor laws...It bothers me to see the way mega corps can so easily shape are narratives.

      So you want to choose the narrative for us?
      In my own mind it's both. Some drivers are full time time, and for them they are simply an improved much better taxi service that outdated laws have failed to recognise. The law will catch-up soon and then you can rest easy.
      For the rest, they are part time ride share type drivers. I have a few friends who are registered drivers and this is how they use the sevice. Again the law will catch up soon and recognise the technology has made the 19th century laws obsolete.
      We've already had draft bills here which would see casual driver (less than a certain amount of hours per week) treated as ride share, and full timers treated as Taxis. So these current problems are not unsolvable.
      This is how 'non-dense' people tackle these types of things, with solutions rather than simply complaining..

    4. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Ride sharing is nothing to do with whether it's part- or full time.

      It's a ride share if the driver was going there anyway.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re: Can we not call them ride sharing? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Except it's BETTER than a taxi service. You know the cost up front: no worry about being ripped off by a taxi driver who takes the long way for a few extra bucks. Also the ability to review drivers means they try a little harder to be friendly.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      I'd like to start by saying hello to our new ride-share overlords..... You may be right. I'm not that up in businesses in China. What I DO know is that China's lack of monopoly and anti-trust laws mean that they have mega-corporations there. Those mega-corporations are taking advantage of Chinese law (American's can't entirely buy a Chinese company). They are are also taking advantage of American law that limits just how large a company can grow inside America.

      That has allowed Chinese corporations to grow unfettered until they are many times the American counterpart. Then they either crush or buy our companies.

      We have a problem and I'm not sure how to fix it. I can, however, say that in the near future (10 years) Uber is going to be become a Chinese subsidiary when Didi goes after them.

    7. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      technology has made the 19th century laws obsolete.

      Well, they're 20th century laws, but what do you think the point of them was? Because, where I am, I definitely see similar problems to what caused the taxi laws to go into effect.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re: Can we not call them ride sharing? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      It's not better than a taxi service -- it's a better taxi service.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    9. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So how many times a day do you go to the airport/mall/doctors? The driver is not 'going anywhere' until he gets a customer on the app.

      Look up. See that? It's the point.

      What's your native language? You clearly don't understand English.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Ride sharing is nothing to do with whether it's part- or full time.

      It's a ride share if the driver was going there anyway.

      Says you. The law (according to the drafts I've heard about) will say different.

    11. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      technology has made the 19th century laws obsolete.

      Well, they're 20th century laws,

      The first recorded taxi services were around in the 17th century. The modern taxi service which we know today was created in the 19th century.

      but what do you think the point of them was?

      The same as most archaic laws, to protect the wealthy and their monopolistic business practices and prevent competition.

      Because, where I am, I definitely see similar problems to what caused the taxi laws to go into effect.

      The biggest problems identified globally - not just 'where you are', is unreliable and illegal behaviour of taxi drivers/services and corruption. Technology solves a lot of these problems (or at least reduces the opportunity) by introducing full accountability. Drivers are more easily screened, journeys are fully tracked and auditable as are payments and feedback. There is now no need to run a taxi service as a monopoly, so why do we still have them?

    12. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Most of the laws came about once cars existed, because the taxis were causing far too much traffic. Most laws don't have any relation to a monopoly, although their prices are regulated to avoid the fares going up too much because of the artificially limited supply. Technology can help prevent illegal activity, but ride sharing is still producing vast traffic jams. Especially around events.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    13. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      When you were at college did you have a section on the noticeboard for ride shares? "Going to Newcastle. Depart Friday 18:00. Return Sunday p.m. 2 places. Split petrol x ways. Dave Lones, physics III".

      LOL, silly me. You - at college!

      Do you think you can ignore food hygiene regulations by calling your restaurant a meal share and having an app?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      When you were at college did you have a section on the noticeboard for ride shares?

      Your experience should be the standard that all shall live by. Cool story....

      Do you think you can ignore food hygiene regulations by calling your restaurant a meal share and having an app?

      You mean like how kids sell cakes and lemonade on a street stall? Or people donate food to others in need? I had a friend over last night for dinner and we shared a meal. OMG regulations are being broken!!! Lock them up!!!!
      You do realise that the law is a living process that evolves and responds to its environment? The law will adapt to Uber type services, regardless of your personal problem with the phrasing used.

    15. Re:Can we not call them ride sharing? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      So like Uber in San Francisco?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  3. Unfair advantage? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

    Didi like a lot of Chinese companies seem to benefit from a lot of protectionism in China to grow and evolve. Surely this is giving them an unfair advantage when they decide to jump into other markets?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Unfair advantage? by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 2

      Didi like a lot of Chinese companies seem to benefit from a lot of protectionism in China to grow and evolve. Surely this is giving them an unfair advantage when they decide to jump into other markets?

      Evolution is unfair by it's nature. This is why we need smart policy makers to stay ahead of the game, not a tangerine blowhard who behaves like a baby.

    2. Re: Unfair advantage? by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      "unfair advantage when they decide to jump into other markets" describes Uber's treatment of taxi regulation world-wide.

    3. Re:Unfair advantage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By that argument no foreign company should be allowed to enter the European market because they had the unfair advantage of growing and evolving without our increasingly crippling regulations.

    4. Re:Unfair advantage? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Most countries have similar protections for taxi services though. Licencing, medallions etc. that all limit the ability of new players to enter the market.

      Most Didi drivers seem to be working for taxi companies anyway, a lot like how most Uber drivers in the UK seem to be working for taxi companies too. Maybe they have to in order to get the taxi licence or something.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Chinese investing in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As an Aussie, oh,... who could've guessed?

    I mean our housing market is close to as bad as Vancouver thanks to them. They have picked up an IMMENSE amount of farmland in the past decade. There's been an utter plethora of money scandles with business and government.

    What could go wrong? You know besides the locals being unable to afford a home anymore? But fuck them, they're poor.

    This country is turning to the shit, fast, very very fast.

  5. pick the hardest... by johnjones · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Didi Chuxing are going to have a hard time expanding beyond tourists....

    WARNING for tourists hey if your washing your money in a Melbourne Casino why not let the Chinese state track how much time you spent at the tables...

    have fun

    John

    1. Re:pick the hardest... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Who needs to go all the way to Melbourne for that sort of thing when Macau's right next door?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  6. Re:Another shoe drops by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Why not just divide the Pacific up democratically?

    5 million to New Zealand
    5 million to Singapore
    8 million to PNG
    18 million to Chile
    24 million to Taiwan
    25 million to Australia
    25 million to North Korea
    30 million to Malaysia
    30 million to Peru
    36 million to Canada
    50 million to South Korea
    92 million to Vietnam
    100 million to the Philippines
    130 million to Japan
    130 million to Mexico
    145 million to Russia
    260 million to Indonesia
    320 million to USA
    1.4 billion to China

    That's assuming no stake in the Atlantic for USA.

  7. Re:Another shoe drops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're right. We (Australia) should fight back using their own methods against them. Simple enough to enact the "To own commercial land or run a business in Australia, you must be an Australian citizen," deal that China has. Set an amnesty for say the end of the year, and if land is still owned by a non-legal entity by then it is forfeit to the government to be sold at auction.

  8. Re:Another shoe drops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I see I'm not the only Aussie utterly sick of the ongoing wholesale sellout of this country to foreigners. Melbourne and Sydney in the right locations, is difficult to differentiate from an Asian city.

    Housing auctions on weekends are regularly 70/80/90% Chinese buyers or white buyers who speak Mandarin, on a cell phone to someone overseas.

    Multiple governments have basically said "fuck the locals, we love this Chinese cash"
    We've sold out, we're Vancouver and it's destroyed a heap of us.

    The homelessness in Melbourne has SKYROCKETED in the past 5 years too, it's mind blowing how rapid it's been.

  9. Hed Lyne Sei Wut? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The Google Translator called, it wants its translation back. Recall.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  10. Re:Another shoe drops by sheramil · · Score: 1

    Pauline Hanson pls go

  11. Chinese Ride Sharing? like this? by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    no seatbelts, no airbag, no windshield
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  12. Re:Fuck China by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    That's my in-laws you're talking about, mate. Mind your bloody manners.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  13. Didi overperformed Uber by poity · · Score: 2

    ...in not getting randomly raided by Chinese authorities on a regular basis.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  14. Social Credit Overseas! by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    Indeed. With the Chinese state already building their Social Credit System, expanding Chinese services like Didi Chuxing abroad is a great way to keep their citizens within the Chinese Internet ecosystem while they're overseas where they can be tracked, monitored and scored. Uber has already demonstrated the kind of abuses and tracking that can be done, now take those possibilities and apply them to a state coordinated environment where they deliberately take that information to score you! Oh, you're going to that casino to burn money? Isn't that address an exiled dissident's bookshop? Interesting that you and a few friends are congregating with a known Taiwanese activist we're tracking...

  15. Fake statistics by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    China no doubt either hampered Uber, helped Didi, or more likely both, and very possibly is just faking the performance statistics of both so they get their own state-owned-and-controlled company a foot in the door. Also no doubt there will be cameras and microphones in all the cars recording everything that's going on, maybe even hacking people's phones. You're nuts to use their service, ever. Of course I'm no fan of Uber either, they're just a bunch of criminals.