Article works like this:<p>1. First I start with my pet theory (China kills foreign competitors to local companies)<p>2. The headline case does not support my theory with facts<p>"Uber in the ride-sharing market; in fact, Uber felt it was treated fairly by a government interested in transportation innovation. According to reports on the ground, Didi used its local knowledge to act more nimbly in satisfying Chinese customers."<p>3. I draw stories from fantasy world<p>"But my guess is that if the American ride-sharing company had been more successful, China would have put a Mao-sized thumb on the scales."<p>4. I go on as if the facts (Uber being clobbered) support my pet theory.<p>5. Page views + Expert!<p>(I'm not saying China doesn't protect it's companies)
I don't really see Uber as a "loser" or "victim" in this latest development. They accomplished a lot here:<p><pre><code> * Stop losing $1B/yr in a non-premium market (low average fare)
* Get a 20% stake in the new Didi/Uber hybrid company, which will grow over time without much active effort by Uber
* Negate Lyft's efforts to run around Uber in China by empowering Didi to crush them
* Align with Apple, who invested $1B in Didi
</code></pre>
All of this just by giving up a failing Chinese taxi business. Uber claims they're not just a taxi company and that they can be a worldwide logistics network. If that's true they can fine-tune that technology elsewhere and re-enter China in other businesses later.
Ugh, this is a poorly written piece. Points are muddled, poor segues, poor references/unbacked claims, and a meandering story. Not what I'd hope for from Levy.<p>From the article:<p>> "..in fact, Uber felt it was treated fairly by a government interested in transportation innovation"<p>Anyone have a source on this?<p>Also, this seems to me like something you'd say even without believing it, if you were afraid of disgruntling the government (either for Uber's operations, or for your prospective future endeavors).
About the only thing I agree with Donald Trump about is that we should be more aggressive with China. They're clearly protecting their domestic industries very aggressively via tactics like the Great Firewall and subsidizing of domestic companies, but any protectionism on our end would apparently be a trade treaty violation. Very, very unfair. But nobody wants to challenge it because too many American companies are still getting rich off cheap labor in China.
"This is not to say that Chinese government regulation drove Uber’s deal with Didi, which was clobbering Uber in the ride-sharing market; in fact, Uber felt it was treated fairly by a government interested in transportation innovation." ... and then he follows up with a story about the Chinese government treating google unfairly. Nice segue man.
A cursory search shows that the US is protectionist too: <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/22/huawei-well-re-enter-us-market-if-welcomed--mobile-world-congress.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/22/huawei-well-re-enter-us-marke...</a>
If Uber's goal is to dominate the Chinese market, it lost the war, of course. But Uber as a business company, making profit is it's ultimate goal which is actually accomplished in its deal with Didi. Also Uber can focus on all others markets in other countries where it is more possible to be the dominant.
I find it interesting that major Chinese internet sites like qq.com, weibo.com, baidu.com & taobao.com seemingly have no interest in becoming globally recognised like western social media brands, and seem content with their mandarin speaking audience (which is quite a big audience, mind you).
" 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. "<p>The government is protecting the home grown companies as any other good government would do. So whats the problem ?
first of all, Uber China is not the first competitor DiDi killed, it is the 31th which means there are 30 China "uber" dead before. In another way, Uber cannot even beat Lyft at hometown. What this story tell you?
It is not in their national interest to have activities of Chinese citizens controlled by foreign companies. They can create their own services, which will serve a huge domestic market, keep the wealth in the country and support domestic economy.
>even to the point where its CEO has learned to speak Mandarin<p>Does this seek to create an undertone of fear that English might not be the dominant business language of the next century?<p>Way to stoke the xenophobia, Steven Levy.