
When It Comes to China, Google’s Experience Still Says It All - dwaxe
https://backchannel.com/when-it-comes-to-china-googles-experience-still-says-it-all-bdc4eeedd32c?source=rss----d16afa0ae7c---4
======
sunstone
The West and China are playing a global chess game and have been for some
time. An impoverished China was not in the West's interests and so they agreed
to buy all kinds of lowish tech Chinese made goods. In return most
jurisdictions enforced a balance of trade with China, with the exception of
the US.

On their end China insisted on joint ventures and technology transfer to the
extent Western companies would comply. Western companies were reluctant to
give up their best tech so China ended up with last generate tech which,
still, was way better than it had. This was a status quo that benefited both
sides enough that it worked well enough for 20 to 30 years.

Now the stakes are getting higher. China wants to level up by buying foreign
tech companies with, essentially, state capital and the West naturally doesn't
see that to be in their interests and so they block those purchases.

The West wants to enter China with their latest internet block busters and
China doesn't see that in their interests and so they block that but, more
often in a soft way. They open the door, allow foreign companies to enter and
train locals in the technology and then slam the door when they gain traction.

Both sides are well aware of the stakes and the situation what's evolving are
the techniques and strategies of the competitors. It's a big boy's game for
large nation states and if you're not that big you're likely to take some
bruises. If you're a fan of raw capitalism though pull up a chair and a beer
and watch the game.

~~~
erdevs
It seems to me that China outplayed the West here by a wide margin.

For some reason, the West has let China get away with extremely protectionist
trade policies the likes of which no one else in the world would dare even
attempt. I think this was a combination of fear that isolating China vs
creating a high degree of economic interdependence could lead to war down the
line, and a lack of control over Western companies who sought to break into
China.

The situation today is deeply concerning. I think Western nations need to take
dramatic action to curb / disincent China's protectionist policies and let
their market open up to the rest of the world. If they won't truly do so, then
the West needs to respond in kind.

~~~
conanbatt
Why is it a problem if China develops a higher GDP than the US. Its not a
problem for the people. It might be a problem to politicians that want to tell
a story, but wishing china to do worse economically is truly backwards. If
china comes out with better technology than the us, better products and
services, cheaper and all that, the whole world gets better. If you dont
believe that, then you must for the sake of consistency think that products
that come out of the us into other countries are vultures in nature and
draining in economic terms.

A more mature approach would be to think what to learn and do(or not do) when
someone is showing great signs of progress. Getting more products from China
makes the whole richer. China's protectionis policies are probably harming
them more than helping them, why play in the same game.

~~~
jcoffland
China is repressive and has very low standards for human rights. If China
becomes more powerful they may decide to conquer the US properly. This may be
along way off but this is the fear that's behind not wanting China to surpass
the US economically.

~~~
gbog
Chinese civilization is different from western civilization, specially in its
habit to absorb other culture, instead of conquering them. China had a Mongol
dynasty, a Manchu dynasty. But it never rode to the other side of the world to
force remote populations to change their religion or political system.

~~~
pests
This interests me. Do you know of any good books, articles, or other sources I
could learn more about this topic? Specifically your first sentence.

~~~
cttet
[https://archive.org/details/problemofchina00russ](https://archive.org/details/problemofchina00russ)
Not exactly answers the question, but I quite like Russel's view on this.

------
hyh1048576
> As late as this past June, Uber was predicting it would pass its rival
> within a year.

This is simply <del>not true</del> (edit: not going to happen). I'm a fan of
Uber, but using Uber is kinda like a exotic thing to do (while Didi is more
common). Uber can be only used in major cities, on the other hand Didi can be
used almost anywhere. Didi simply expand faster in China. (Uber is available
in less than 20 Chinese cities while Didi appears in hundreds.)

Also I don't view the merge of Uber China and Didi as a failure on Uber's
side. It's more or less a peace treaty or truce (edit: between Uber _per se_
and Didi, yes I know Uber China was merged). Uber-like service is simply too
cheap in China for a long time, (I Uber to work for less than $2 for example),
and both side cannot hold it any more. It's as simple as that.

(Before the Didi-Uber merge, there's a similar merge of Didi and it's major
competitor Kuaidi, thus the full name Didi-Kuaidi, in which both side are
Chinese companies and it's just that after long competition investors decided
to facilitate a merge. This merge makes Uber the second largest, before that
they were the 3rd.)

The story between Google and Baidu is a whole different one. First search
engine as a gateway to informations is viewed as vital by the Chinese
government and government really worked on Baidu's side.

~~~
erdevs
> > > As late as this past June, Uber was predicting it would pass its rival
> within a year.

> This is simply not true.

Yes it is true. Kalanick's investor updates from 24-12 months ago were all
gung ho on China and how Uber was seeing as much or more success there as any
Western country ever had. Their _explicit_ goal was to outcompete Didi and
become the #1 on-demand service in China ( _on-demand_ generally... not just
for transportation). Their timeline for winning majority market share was
12-24 months out, and that is how they justified the extremely, extremely
aggressive cash burn in the market. (Nobody burns $1B+/yr in cash gunning to
grow slowly into second place.) Believe me when I say that several billion
dollars of raised capital and $10B+ of Uber's imputed valuation was attributed
to their potential in China, their growth there, and their plan to dominate in
the next 12-24 months.

What evidence have you that this is "simply not true." Some of these
statements to investors have become public knowledge, which you'll see with a
simple google search.

Just one of many articles and quotes from this timeframe outlining Uber's
explicit goal of becoming dominant in marketshare in China within a year:
[http://www.digitaltrends.com/business/uber-beat-
didi/](http://www.digitaltrends.com/business/uber-beat-didi/) Note as well how
cocky and aggressive Uber was here in their marketing, public statements, etc.

> Also I don't view the merge of Uber China and Didi as a failure on Uber's
> side.

It was absolutely a failure. Uber's goal was to beat Didi and dominate in
China, as is their goal in every single market they enter. Did they succeed or
fail in that goal?

Uber did a good job salvaging value here in having its Chinese operation
acquired by Didi. But make no mistake, it was a failure and this falls far
short of both their intentions and their promises to investors.

Also, this was forced on Uber _by_ investors. People lost faith that Uber
could win in China, and rightfully so. The cash burn was staggering and there
was no end in sight and no clear path to actual victory, despite the
previously lofty updates and promises.

> It's more or less a peace treaty or truce

No. A peace treaty or truce means each side remains independent but they agree
to stop warring with each other. This is an outright purchase. Uber lost the
war and it's best option was to salvage value in Uber China by merging into a
minority, small position (only 18%) within Didi's business.

> Uber-like service is simply too cheap in China for a long time, (I Uber to
> work for less than $2 for example), and both side cannot hold it any more.
> It's as simple as that.

Yes. It was a war of attrition. And Uber lost the war. As simple as that.
That's why it makes no sense that you're framing this as somehow just a "peace
treaty".

> Before the Didi-Uber merge, there's a similar merge of Didi and it's major
> competitor Kuaidi..

Yes, this was a brilliant move on Didi's (and Kuaidi's) part. On top of this,
Didi struck a partnership with Lyft. In terms of military strategy, Didi was
encircling Uber on all sides. Instead of having to fight a war on two fronts
with Kuaidi and Uber, they used Kuaidi and Lyft as springboards.

This was absolutely brilliant and bold strategy and it's an approach few
start-ups could pull off or would even attempt trying. M&A and mergers are
extremely complex for start-ups to tackle and this was brilliant strategy.

2 years ago, Uber was playing the role of the big dog and pressuring to buy
Didi. After Didi's great growth and very effective strategy over the past two
years, the roles were totally reversed and Didi bought Uber's China operations
for what was ultimately a pittance. 18%, which will be further diluted over
time.

> The story between Google and Baidu is a whole different one. First search
> engine as a gateway to informations is viewed as vital by the Chinese
> government and government really worked on Baidu's side.

I think the governemnt helped Didi quite a bit too. As did Tencent.

~~~
hyh1048576
> What evidence have you that this is "simply not true." Some of these
> statements to investors have become public knowledge, which you'll see with
> a simple google search.

I'm not saying Kalanick didn't say that, what I meant is it's not going to
happen based on my observation. Sorry if it was misleading.

> No. A peace treaty or truce means each side remains independent but they
> agree to stop warring with each other. This is an outright purchase.

What you said make sense, but I see this as a truce between Didi and Uber _per
se_ , not just Uber China. Uber lose a battle on Chinese turf to Didi and sold
this branch in exchange to some share of Didi. But Uber still exists. I don't
view this as a victory of Didi either, they simply defended their home turf.
What we may see next is maybe they will compete in SE Asia or India. It seems
like Didi is more ambitious on things like this.

~~~
erdevs
Thanks for explaining / clarifying.

> I don't view this as a victory of Didi either, they simply defended their
> home turf.

I think this is where we disagree. It was definitely a victory for Didi. They
beat Uber in China, which is the market they care most about.

Moreover, they have aligned themselves strategically. They now have a stake of
Uber as well (don't forget Didi also invested $1B in Uber and as a result
achieved information rights on Uber). They have partnerships with Grab in SE
Asia and Ola in Inida. Lyft in the US. They continue to encircle Uber...

Whereas a year ago, an Uber investor could've reasonable thought Uber was on a
path to domination worldwide... today it's clear that their potential is
greatly diminished from those lofty possibilities. They are removed from China
outright. They are being confronted by an opponent that has already beat them
in SE Asia and perhaps in India. Who knows what is next in Europe and the US.

Didi has been absolutely brilliant here, and they deserve full credit for it.

------
diego_moita
> Uber felt it was treated fairly by a government

> my guess is that if [...] had been more successful, China would have put a
> Mao-sized thumb on the scales.

This is how it lost me, it shows how light he is on facts.

I do agree with the 2 statements "China is protectionist" and "protectionism
is bad".

But I am cynical enough to see that everyone carefully pics which
protectionism they complain about.

As a Brazilian I am still waiting to hear Americans, Japanese and Europeans
complaining about their own farming protectionism, at least as loudly as they
complain about other countries.

~~~
Sammi
Farming protectionism is different from other protectionism, because self-
sufficient farming is a national military security goal. If a nation gets into
a huge war, then you want to still be able to feed the people.

In general any nation would want to be self-sufficient in all basic
necessities, that would come under threat in war time.

~~~
diego_moita
Well, that's exactly my point and that's exactly what hypocrisy looks like.

Every protectionism is different because ... reasons. There will always be an
"what if..." to justify everything.

------
noisy_boy
China is a peculiar case. It has embraced parts of capitalism that ensure
market growth. The huge domestic market coupled with aggressive stealing of IP
to create cheapest-in-the-world knock-offs have fuelled its exports. However,
having this selective breed of capitalism has allowed its leadership to
sidestep aspects of American capitalism e.g. influence of corporations on
leaders. This means that companies don't have the same lobbying power in
influencing policy/laws/IP etc. So basically we have this wealthy nation with
its leadership not generally obliged to listen to either market or its people.
So they do what they want to do.

Its like the skinny kid hit the gym, made a ton of money and is now back in
the neighbourhood throwing its weight around.

~~~
smallnamespace
> However, having this selective breed of capitalism has allowed its
> leadership to sidestep aspects of American capitalism e.g. influence of
> corporations on leaders

This is not a surprise if you understand China's political culture and its
long, long history.

For literally thousands of years, political elites in China have understood
that political power follows economic power, which is why the richest in China
are generally Party members and high officials.

When Deng Xiaoping said "let some people get rich first", he meant those with
political connections.

American politicians and citizens allowing corporate interests to slowly take
over the political process is due to not understanding how history works.

~~~
serge2k
> which is why the richest in China are generally Party members and high
> officials.

Wouldn't that be the case with pretty much any totalitarian regime?

> American politicians and citizens allowing corporate interests to slowly
> take over the political process is due to not understanding how history
> works.

I'll take the flawed lobbying system over the Chinese system any day.

~~~
smallnamespace
> Wouldn't that be the case with pretty much any totalitarian regime?

No. There are plenty of totalitarian regimes where any actual wealth held
outside of a tiny ruling clique is considered unacceptable.

China's trick is that they 1) embraced de facto capitalism and 2) managed to
spread the wealth amongst a relatively large Party base (as a % of the
population) while _still_ maintaining insider control. That's a very, very
fine balancing act, and most authoritarian regimes can't manage to do it,
leading to either failure to sustain economic growth (e.g. Russia, or North
Korea) or complete loss of control to new economic elites.

In fact, Xi's anti-corruption campaign may potentially destabilize the Party
because it breaks the implicit contract that has kept the Party together for
the last 3 decades (namely, support the Party, and we'll look at the other way
on corruption).

------
merraksh
_According to reports on the ground, Didi used its local knowledge to act more
nimbly in satisfying Chinese customers. 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._

So Didi was actually better; it's a bit unfair to say that otherwise the game
would have been rigged.

~~~
hyh1048576
Didi seems to be better at e.g. customer service. For example, their support
can be reached by phone, and Uber support can be only reached via Email.

I'm sure people know, in China, call center operates way cheaper than in U.S.
This and the fact that people are unwilling to use Email are some of the major
sources of complaint on Uber I've heard about.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
If thats true, Uber was simply being incompetent here. We recently launched a
shop on Tmall (Alibaba version of Amazon), and you usually hire a local agency
to provide customer support for the chinese. 80% of the traffic is mobile, so
they use SMS and phone calls a lot, emails much less than in the west. Also
chat, they expect to be able to directly talk to someone via chat from the
website.

Not doing so means disregarding local habits, good luck with that.

------
danbruc
I really dislike this tone of China acting fundamentally badly. It's their
country, they can do whatever the heck they want. If they want a local
replacement for everything already existing outside of Chine, so be it. If you
just let established big players have all the cake, chances for success of
local competitors become pretty slim.

Stealing trade secrets if of course not okay, but that is more of a
theoretical argument, the west probably has his fingers equally deep in the
Chinese cookie jar. If you make agreements and China later unilaterally breaks
them, that is of course also not okay.

But investors don't seem to care, it's not that nobody knows what to expect,
but the lure of huge profits seems to win again and again.

~~~
ryanobjc
"stealing of trade secrets [...] is more of a theoretical argument"

I just wanted to point out this pretty amazing sentence.

~~~
danbruc
What is so amazing about this sentence?

~~~
jgroch
in theory it's stealing something very very very abstwact?

~~~
danbruc
It is of course theft, my point was that I assume the west is also taking
whatever they can get so that it would be hypocritical to blame China for
doing it.

~~~
6stringmerc
Eh, that's kind of rationalizing away the threat posed by China's habitual
targeting of US military tech, specifically in aviation.

I'll believe China has corrected its dirty sourcing ways when they build their
own reliable Mach 2 Fighter Jet from scratch without reading Lockheed's
homework first.

~~~
danbruc
Where is the difference to what the USA and USSR respectively Russia did and
probably still do to each other? Or the USA allegedly still spying on Airbus?
If everybody does it, why only blame China?

------
dr_faustus
Don't kid yourself thinking that the US is above those tactics. They might use
some other techniques but it is in many regards just as protectionist as
China.

One common theme is completely exaggerated fines leveled against foreign
companies. Look at the banks: while doing very little to punish U.S. banks (if
you take net transfers into account) who where without a doubt the main
culprits in the sub-prime crisis and thereby causing a global financial
crisis, the U.S. almost exclusively punished foreign banks - and with that
also foreign tax payers - for wrong doings like dealings with countries the
U.S. dislikes, etc..

Another striking example is the fines imposed in Volkswagen. While it
certainly was immensely stupid to cheat on the emission test, the fines are
completely over the top: $16b and counting. After every state and agency is
through with VW, it might be $30b or more. At the same time, U.S. car
companies that caused actual casualties with there shoddy engineering are left
of the hook with a slap in the wrist.

Some sources:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/12/22/isnt-
it-s...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/12/22/isnt-it-strange-
that-the-us-gets-to-fine-alstom-a-french-company-for-bribery-not-in-the-
us/#28903e6c2de3)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/business/dealbook/volkswag...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/business/dealbook/volkswagen-
faces-harsher-penalties-than-a-us-company-might.html)

------
lambdasquirrel
> 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.

Anyone remember when GM had to be bailed out, but at the time, they were
actually generating profits in China and it was one of their few bright spots?
Ford likewise. I just don't buy this.

~~~
Buge
Well some members of my family own a factory making car parts. Many parts ship
to Ford plants in China. China recently created a new rule saying Ford cannot
buy parts from the US. So we either had to build a plant in China, or stop
shipping to Ford. We stopped shipping to Ford. They were our largest customer.

~~~
rahimnathwani
Wait, what? Can you point us to the rule? It sounds like the WTO might be
interested.

------
Unbeliever69
"Put simply, China likes locals to succeed over foreign companies, and will
act accordingly."

This is SO Un-American!

------
idra
Haven't noticed that anyone is talking about the fact that just a week ago,
the Chinese government issued a press release about "legalizing" ride-sharing
apps [1][2]. Article 21 of the new law, which should take effect this
November, basically says that subsidizing the drivers would be illegal,
effectively killing Uber's strategy.

The Uber case is classic in China, governemnt using "laws and regulations" to
kill foreign businesses. Didi's competitive advantage was just being Chinese,
nothing else. Now that Uber has surrendered, I wonder if the regulations will
actually be implemented.

[1]
[http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2016-07/28/c_129186192.ht...](http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2016-07/28/c_129186192.htm)
(Official press release in Chinese)

[2] [https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/28/china-issues-guidelines-
to...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/28/china-issues-guidelines-to-legalize-
ride-hailing-apps-like-uber-and-didi-chuxing/) (Article in English)

------
throwaway201607
Remember this, If you do not like the status quo in China, then stop
supporting it. As American companies economically invaded other countries,
much of the culture became the norm. If you think censorship, collusion,
corruption, disparity et al are ok traits for a society, then by all means
keep inviting them into the country to control more and more of American
culture.

------
Nokinside
Most successful nations today did protect their markets and relied on tight
government coordination when they were doing catch-up after WWII: Japan,
Korea, ,Taiwan, France, Germany, Finland, ...

The question we should ask is how much is proper and beneficial. Asking China
to play the same game as already developed nations is not fair or realistic.

------
auggierose
Making deals with someone who has an entirely different value system is
dangerous, especially when there is no neutral institution to enforce those
deals. Western companies doing business in China are lead by a mixture of
braveness, greed and naiveness, I guess.

------
cronjobber
Articles like these never fail to drive home just how much of a US patsy the
EU has always been.

~~~
mywittyname
Unlike the EU, China has the capability to build companies that could rival
top US players. So it's unsurprising that China takes the uncompromising
approach to foreign investment that they do.

I'd love to see an American's reaction to a speech where Xi Jinping exclaims
that he will ensure that all Americans start using Baidu as their search
engine.

~~~
cronjobber
Europeans had been promised and conditioned that their countries would give a
shit about privacy. It would have seemed unlikely to European founders that
they'd be _allowed_ to run a blatant commercial spyware operation like Google
or Facebook; and in fact I'd bet that they would have met _fierce_ regulatory
resistance... until Google and Facebook waltzed in from the US and surprise,
nobody put up any resistance until the war was won. Yeah, sure, long _after_
the war was lost, some EU regulatory theater.

I actually bought a N900 back in the day. It was _good_. Nokia smartphones
could have been a thing, not just because they were good, but they'd taken off
just a few years later _especially_ on privacy grounds. There's not nearly
enough conspiracy theorizing about Elop blatantly Osborning Maemo...

~~~
pitaj
> Europeans had been promised and conditioned that their countries would give
> a shit about privacy

Do Europeans really care that much about privacy? As an outsider, I don't see
much fighting for privacy coming from Europe.

> blatant commercial spyware operation like Google or Facebook

What kind of regulation do you think would stop this "spyware" as you call it?
Are you really going to restrict an internet firm from collecting user
information with the user's consent and then selling that information? What
regulation would you do?

Something like "right to be forgotten" is the absolute worst direction to go.
When I first heard about it, I knew the regulators were idiots. That is
patently opposed to free expression.

------
eva1984
The article is off-the-topic.

It states clearly, Uber hasn't got to the state that Chinese government would
put the thumb on the scale, but go straight and use Google's example to
picture what would happen if Uber ever close to domination, in order to resell
pieces of his book about Google's exit from China.

He might be right. Chinese government is as shady as it has ever been. But
since Uber hasn't ever got close to what Google has been in China(Google has
been close to dominate the market back in 2009), and their completely
different nature of business, Uber's failure in China resembles very little to
what forces out Google.

I won't go in deep analysis why Uber decided to make the move. But bear in
mind, China has its own internet ecosystem, because the infamous Great
Firewall, to the point, the government publish pieces that the 'internet' will
keep functioning even US decides to cut China off, showcasing how 'secure' and
isolated it is. When it comes to internet, I cannot remember what foreign
services cannot be replaced by local counterparts. Besides, those local
companies are very successful, Tencent and Alibaba are both 100B worth
company, they both invest huge money in Didi. And when it comes to internet,
China is pretty much catches up to U.S. in terms of technology. If the
situation is reversed, would you ever believe Didi can compete with Uber here
in U.S.? I don't think so. And for Uber, China is something good to have, but
for Didi it is that they couldn't afford to lose, the determination to battle
to the ground is different.

------
notliketherest
Not to mention China's state sponsored thefts of American IP (esp tech), which
is no doubt being used in Chinese carbon copy corporations protected behind
the great firewall.

~~~
anonymousDan
I'm probably opening myself to accusations of whataboutery but it's not like
America has never partaken in state sponsored industrial espionage:
[http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-busted-
conducting...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/nsa-busted-conducting-
industrial-espionage-in-france-mexico-brazil-and-other-countries.html)

------
astazangasta
This is horseshit nationalism, again. What Chinese companies have made huge
inroads into the American tech world? Every time they do, some commentator
(probably the same guy who wrote this article) will show up to shake a big
stick at them and try to chase them off, with tales of impending Chinese
takeover.

The real story, there and here, is one of large corporations using whatever
means they can, including their friends in local government, to increase their
own power.

~~~
pitaj
Money infiltrates politics because politics has power that normal money can't
achieve. Remove that power from politics, and the money will leave as well.

------
paradite
duplicate of this:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12218211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12218211)

~~~
dwaxe
My bad, didn't see Steven himself posting it! Not sure why he used a different
title than the one he chose for his own publication.

------
teawithcarl
It's actually worse than described in this article. XiJinPing is beyond
ruthless, law is meaningless. Even this under-describes the reality.

~~~
LiweiZ
Your comment should be the foundation for discussion about China nowadays.

------
qiqing
A few important segments that really seem to get buried in the rest of the
text.

"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.
According to reports on the ground, Didi used its local knowledge to act more
nimbly in satisfying Chinese customers.

...

Google’s retreat came in 2010, so it’s fair to ask whether those regulatory
issues still exist.

...

To be fair, the American marketplace has not exactly been a fertile ground for
Chinese internet companies hoping to break in. Though many of the really big
players — Baidu, Alibaba, TenCent, WeChat — have moved on from clone-ish
beginnings and actually come up with important innovations, none have made an
impact here. But that’s due more to a lack of resolve than any regulatory
barriers."

------
erikb
I wish more countries would support their own brands as much as China.

~~~
cocotino
Political correctness is the plague of our time.

------
drawkbox
Protectionism and currency manipulation in a free trade setup will end badly.
Every trade deal we do needs to address these issues with consequences.

China joined the WTO in Oct '01 and full participation in '05, the US has
suffered since then.

Problem is sometimes our greed drives these deals over long-term futures. The
time of selling out the whole country with non-protectionism for a country
that does protectionism and currency manipulation is truly a catastrophic deal
for trade partners futures.

------
gist
The "local knowledge" argument doesn't hold much water. The reason is any
company entering China hires natives and people who in theory (and at the
level they hire at) are quite capable of rivaling those who work for companies
in that country.

------
wangii
I'd say Chinese government's position is well justified, given every
presidential candidate in last 30 years competed to trash it. You want an
enemy, you'll get one.

------
darkhorn
It is their country, they can do whatever they want. I think USA should do
whatever it wants too, like blocking Chinese tech companies in the USA.

~~~
nneonneo
The US doesn't need to - as the article indicates, most Chinese tech companies
have no interest in operating outside of Asia. To give some concrete examples:
WeChat (微信), which is entirely ubiquitous in China, has essentially zero
market share in the US - parts of the app aren't even localized to English!
Baidu is the biggest search engine in China, and it doesn't have an English
version. Alibaba operates one of the world's largest online stores (like
Amazon), but has no presence in the States. And so on.

Western tech companies want in on the Chinese market, but by and large, the
reverse is not true.

------
touristtam
Weird that all those tech company didn't learn from the car industry trying
really hard in the 90s to dominate the Chinese market.

------
bduerst
Are there any cast studies on multinational companies that were successful in
China and outlined why? Companies like Danone?

~~~
optforfon
Sure. There are tons. Starbucks is everywhere, KFC, McDonalds, Walmart is
doing okay along with Carrefour. Apple ofcourse is completely crushing the
phone market (and it's not just so they can employ a few factories of manual
laborers) Car comapnies do just fine. I'm sure there is a ton of industrial
espionage and technology transfer from government to local companies (hard to
explain some advances otherwise.. ), but articles screaming about Chinese
protectionism mostly stink of "bad sportsmanship". Some of these companies
just blew it (Uber and Ebay) or they're social media platforms. The reality is
that the government wants control over the media and what 99% of people hear
and read. So platforms like Facebook or Google (with their vague moral
obligation about not being "evil") make them very nervous. I talked to a
Malaysia Chinese guy who supported the censorship and he explained it this
way. In the third world (esp if you look at the middle east) there is a huge
problem of misinformation and hysteria. People eat up all sorts of conspiracy
theories and factoids gets spun out of control and can't get contained. In a
country with lots of superstitions like China that's almost doubly worrying.
So the government seems it in it's interest to control that kind feedback loop
(obviously in part to keep itself in power... you could see some local protest
about some minor issue blowing up into a national protest) So in general once
some social media platform seems to get a critical mass it gets either brought
down a peg or brought into the fold somehow (like Tencent buying League of
Legend and some Android game)

I'm not condoning their policies, but they have their own internal consistency
that's a little more nuanced then just "fuck the foreigner companies"

~~~
walrus01
Car companies do fine in weird ways: Buick is a super luxury prestigious brand
in mainland China because 100 years ago, some of the first cars imported were
Buicks... In the USA it's seen as your grandfather's land yacht.

~~~
sushid
It's also because companies can completely rebrand themselves when they go
abroad (as do humans sometimes, go figure).

PBR is sold as a premium beer brand in China, and in Korea, VWs are considered
luxurious. Pretty ironic, seeing as it's name literally means people's car in
German.

------
foxwoods
Encrypted communication would be the next game changer.

------
6stringmerc
Thanks, Nixon.

