My suspicion is that its very unlikely that Google and FB are going to be able to establish the government relationships that would allow them to operate successfully in China.Google collects massive amounts of citizen data and it has close relations with the US military / security institutions. The combination means Google will never be a trusted operator in China. Facebook is in a worse position. In addition to being a data collection platform with US government connections, it is a communications platform not under the direct control of China, located in the US.And these US communications platforms have a history now of being associated with movements of anti-government dissent around the world.
More generally, I dont see how US tech companies are going to be able to have it both ways -- be both willing partners in US government policy and also non threatening to Chinese sovereignty.
I don't see how Chinese tech companies are going to be able to have it both ways either if they ever actually want to leave China. This is one market (the world) vs. another market (China), and they are increasingly becoming separated at the Internet level.
Also, if China decides the only way it can keep competing is by blocking their competition, then the rest of the world will just wag their finger at them when they complain about export markets for their cultural products. If the Chinese government were smart, they would find a way to let Facebook and Google in while maintaining control over censorship AND keeping its anointed tech companies with majority market shares.
Yes, strict separation will probably be the norm where there are sovereignty issues. And it will be enforced both ways. So for example,I will make the claim that if Alipay expanded into the US it would own the entire payments market in one year. Alipay is just that much better than anything else available in the US. Plausible or not, Alipay will never operate successfully in the US because the US will not cede sovereignty over part of its financial infrastructure to China.
I can not say if that is smart or not. That question is outside of my technical sphere of competence. But I believe it's an accurate evaluation of how states will operate, as soon as these systems start being used to project power.
I lived in China for almost 10 years and had to use cash all the time. Towards the end of that alipay and whatever wepay became popular. I moved back to the states and went back to using a credit/debit card or everything, and haven’t been to an ATM in a year and I don’t even bother carrying around cash at all anymore.
Alipay was solving a China-specific problem (credit card infrastructure and policies were never really very good), why would westerners stop using cards to awkwardly hold their phones up to QR scanners? That just isn’t going to happen. It is a sovereignty issue at all, it just doesn’t make sense. The west doesn’t have the small scale retailers that would benefit from that, everyone in retail can afford at least Square.
This is a good point. You can do things with your smartphone in China that not even advanced markets in Europe have figured out. The US tech sector isn't the only player anymore.
Again, it’s not that they haven’t figured it out, it’s that there is no need to do it. I’ve seen how payments happen with the phone by exhanging QR codes, it’s a nice trick, but how could anyone claim that is better than the chip, swipe, and tap infrastructure already pervasive in the west? China basically skipped credit and debit cards, the West didn’t.
That really isn't true at all. Ya, they have a high-ish merchant charge, but you don't see that as a consumer.
You can also go with debit cards if you want to, the only extra step is entering a PIN sometimes (for some purchases over some amount).
In Australia, they have it even better by having much more pervasive tap to pay in place. Why would anyone choose Alipay over tap to pay? You would have to be nuts.
There are some other issues, but I'm not sure they're fixable by technology alone:
* Getting from zero to accepting payments is long and complicated. Some of this can be streamlined, but how much of it is limited by anti-money-laundering regulations?
* The concept of "you can initiate a charge as long as you have about 40 bits of information, and can do so for 2-5 years or until the card is revoked" is a model doomed to fraud problems.
* There's no legal requirement that all potential legal merchants get serviced or at fair rates. See the recent discussions about payments for the porn industry; plenty of processors will not want to work with gun dealers.
* There's no solid standardization, so you can't shop around providers freely because changing who you buy from may mean you have to replace your swipe machines or rebuild your cart to talk to the new vendor's gateway of choice.
Tik Tok (developed by Chinese company Toutiao) seems to be doing fine globally. In general, I don't see any backlash against apps and services developed in China.
Wechat has tried many tines and can’t even get much traction in HK. Most of the countries neighboring China, even Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar, are firmly in Facebook/google’s sphere.
Seems apple is doing well in China even though it also collects massive data, e.g. the icloud....basically in China apple follows the China gov policy.
> Google collects massive amounts of citizen data and it has close relations with the US military / security institutions. The combination means Google will never be a trusted operator in China.
But in the US and Europe, people don't have any problems with this combination. I blame the dumbing down of people in western culture to the degree that they go "i like free stuff" when confronted with the truth about why it's free.
The best thing both of them can do (and every other tech giant that is not Chinese) is to put up a moat around China and contain all the competing Chinese tech companies to only China. This means putting extra effort into every country that borders China and every country with whom China has a strong economic relationship.
This isn't too different to how Facebook conquered universities where it was #2 to some other social network. Instead of trying to replace the social network at that university (A) with Facebook, it focused on all the universities (B, C, D, etc.) around that university (A) so that there would be a strong social network composed of the secondary universities (B, C, D, etc.) and that would lead students at the first university (A) to join Facebook when they made friends with students at the secondary universities (B, C, D, etc.).
Facebook and Google want that 1 billion of possible users to comply with the thirst of the stock market that has been accustomed to user growth metrics as a signal for sustainable tech company. They have already expanded on where they can and you can smell the desperation. Specially with projects like Free Basics, Internet.org, Aquila, Loon and Skybender which are not charity, they just want more users with internet to adopt there platforms to keep with the growth metrics. It's going to be an interesting next 10 years for Google and Facebook.
No, China does not want Google just like South Korea does not want Google. Everybody uses Naver here. China and South Korea do not want Google because local alternatives are superior.
China doesn't ban Google, China bans websites that do not comply with its law. Chinese law compliant Google was up in China from 2006 to 2009. As soon as Google is compliant, China will unblock Google.
The interesting thing is whether or not the services will actually match what Chinese consumers want.
Imagine if Baidu tried to launch in the US. For most of us, we'd try it a few times for the novelty, but unless the product was knock-your-socks-off better, we'd keep getting stuck on things being a little quirky, a little unlike what we're used to, and eventually head back to Google or Bing.
It's going to take a lot of real customer data to smooth off those rough spots. Google and Facebook have run trillions of A/B tests in the English speaking world, but how many have they done in China? Yes, it's arguably just a matter of throwing money at the problem, but it still means the launch will be lackluster.
Also, I wonder how de-featured Google and Facebook would have to be on day 1 in China. This isn't a censorship thing, it's UGC and integration with local companies. Are you going to have enough advertisers to fill out things like the shopping carousels? Will Google's maps be as detailed as Baidu's cute pixel-art ones? Will any restaurant have more than four reviews?
If Google is allowed in 'unrestricted' obviously they will be #1 by a wide margin. But all things being equal, sure, maybe Baidu may be #1 ... but in either case it's absurd to say 'China doesn't want Google' to the point of being almost propagandistic.
Proving what? You essentially claimed no one was interested in it because there were better alternatives. You're providing evidence against your own claim here.
For most people in South Korea, Naver search is better than Google search. I have no reason to doubt that for most people in China, Baidu search is better than Google search.
Apparently, a lot of users are commenting on Weibo about their deep untrust of Baidu -- and how they can’t wait for Google to come back to China [1]. Also Baidu seems to favor its own products for search engine rankings [2].
Further searching reveals reports that Baidu is significantly behind Google in AI, and that usability takes the backseat vs money.
I would like to see a more thorough comparison between the two.
i would not call tens of thousands a lot in country with at least half billion internet users plus by my experience living years in China, Chinese are very brave when it confess to statements but actions are entirely different thing once they realize consequences, so even most of those few tens of thousands can't be taken seriously
as was stated by other commenter, baidu it's superior for Chinese search, same as manner it's for Korean, giggle can't get right non Latin character languages
This is the type thing that makes me support President Trump. The Chinese have very unfair business practices and they require a strong President to deal with them.
Trump’s rhetoric was intriguing in this area at one point. The actions not so much.
As he cracks about “shithole” countries, China is building the infrastructure to exploit their resources. As allies in the Pacific look for leadership to contain China, we’re insulting NATO nations, who are for all intents US military vassal states.
> China is building the infrastructure to exploit their resources
This is even worse. China will eat up the world in a similar way in which they ate up Sri-Lanka's port. Build a ton of infra for the developing world and then once they're unable to pay for it, they camp in your country forcibly.
The debt is mounting in most countries where China has 'invested' in infrastructure. For instance in Kenya, each Kenyan is estimated to already owe the Chinese roughly $100 and counting. May not mean much in the west but certainly is a lot of debt out of the total $1000 every Kenyan owes. Even the IMF is freakishly worried about Kenya's debt for crying out loud.
The Chinese will use unethical/unfair business practices to earn wealth from the west and then use it to recolonize developing countries while screwing over every other western country. Luckily, GEOTUS Trump will be able to stop this!
> This is even worse. China will eat up the world in a similar way in which they ate up Sri-Lanka's port. Build a ton of infra for the developing world and then once they're unable to pay for it, they camp in your country forcibly.
The Marshall Plan was about rebuilding a bombed-out and destroyed Europe, and it actually did that. The countries that received aid needed it desperately, didn't end up trapped by debt, and afterward entered a period of high growth and prosperity. Except in the most superficial ways, it's not really comparable to the Belt and Road initiative.
Are you referring to the concessions made by Germany & Italy for military basing, extraterritorial rights, etc?
I don't think that was contingent on Marshall Plan aid. Those things are more to do with the victor taking the spoils. US policy here was more nuanced and recognized that an impoverished and devastated europe was ultimately a threat to peace.
> Are you referring to the concessions made by Germany & Italy for military basing, extraterritorial rights, etc?
If he's thinking of stuff like that, I think those had more to do with countries like West Germany not wanting to become countries like East Germany, due to a Soviet invasion.
And yet I trust America's intentions more than China's. Going by track record alone, China's had a murderous regime that tortured and killed its own people by the millions. Wouldn't want them controlling my country that's for sure.
The leap to the suggestion that Trump is a strong president is where you lost me. Otherwise I agree with you that the US needs a strong response to China.
Why'd I lose you? There is a case to be made for Trump being the only US president to stand up to China in any meaningful way. He was able to do what everyone was afraid to do (impose tariffs regardless of any threats from China) and that takes strength. You don't have to like him as a person, but you cannot claim he's not doing a fantastic job.
In that one area alone I would agree stuff are happening, but he imposed tariffs on the EU citing WTO rules reserved for war too, and the responses has hurt local US businesses. That’s an absolutely terrible job.
Haven't followed the EU trade tariffs lately but as I gathered last I checked, this was a temporary thing and he got what he wanted which was better trade terms from the EU to America. I don't see why this was a bad thing; some short term/temporary discomfort for better deals in the long run.
This is a still ongoing affair, and the trade terms are still not finished. The only thing he’s accomplished is an image of the US as unpredictable and dishonest since they had no legal standing. The EU will remember this the next time the trade agreements are up for renogitation.
I thought the convo was about standing up to China. From a strategic point of view, you can't have two measuring rules (EU/China). If China is being unfair with tariffs, so is the EU.
More generally, I dont see how US tech companies are going to be able to have it both ways -- be both willing partners in US government policy and also non threatening to Chinese sovereignty.