Hacker News Reader

Comment by _Codemonkeyism | Hacker News Reader

Article works like this:

1. First I start with my pet theory (China kills foreign competitors to local companies)

2. The headline case does not support my theory with facts

"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."

3. I draw stories from fantasy world

"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."

4. I go on as if the facts (Uber being clobbered) support my pet theory.

5. Page views + Expert!

(I'm not saying China doesn't protect it's companies)

View on HN

If an American company failed in China, it must be because it is treated unfairly.

Wait, Walmart, MacDonald's, Procter & Gamble, etc are hugely successful in China. Nah, they are not tech companies. Wait, Apple is successful in China. Microsoft has a good run, too. Even Yahoo had a few good years there.

Not to mention all the American fashion brands that are doing great in China, like Levi's, Coach, Polo, etc.

Add in the makeup brands like Lancome, Estee Lauder, Clinique, etc.

The Chinese public values hardware and tangible stuff. Plus its made in China, so the Chinese Govt lets them live. Apple, VW, GM, Caterpillar, Fashion.

The Chinese public don't much value IP, software or services and so the Chinese Govt doesn't need to let anyone get a foothold. Plus these companies don't really help the Chinese economy with jobs, etc. so Google, Uber, Software? Consulting? Banks?

actually most IP is pretty misleading anyways.

sure there are good IP examples but since the 21th century the most stuff is over patented.

especially design shapes. most development will lead to the "optimal" design anyways maybe not "exactly" the same but the same as it would threaten somebodies IP. software patents, too. so much stuff that is patented that you will probably have a really hard way to come up with a new video codec without violating "something".

patents should be invalidated based on "evolution" of triviality and state of the art, but they will never be since somebody will pay a huge amount to just keep this stuff.

and that just applies to IP in "our" world. In other stuff it's even worse.

McDonald's and Yum are starting to struggle there, and the parent corporations will likely be squeezed out of China in the coming years as primary operators. They'll be semi-forced to sell off their ownership inside of China as their position weakens, and they'll retain a minority holding (Yum is in that position right now, they've already begun pursuing that end result out of necessity). Yum has lost half of its market share in four years, and McDonald's lost 20% of its market share in that time. I'm not implying these companies aren't responsible for that, but they are not going to be held up as successful examples five years from now.

Since when has China been a successful venture for Walmart? They've struggled there since day one, and have thrown everything they can at it. Their sales are falling in China, rather than rising, and they've gone through one re-branding after another. It's anything but hugely successful.

Apple just lost a huge portion of their sales in China, and are increasingly coming under the same nationalistic attack that so many other US companies have. Apple is likely to see its position there erode consistently going forward as nationalism sways toward other domestic competitors and China places restrictions on Apple's ability to operate freely in media and apps.

Walmart failed miserably in Germany, I guess it's the governments fault.

Sort of:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26ca4d4e-decd-11d9-92cd-00000e2511...

Walmart brought all kinds of weird american business ethics to Germany, like shouting the company's name every morning, an "ethics code" which disallowed employees to flirt with each other and a mandate to spy/report on colleagues. This was struck down in German courts and gave bad press. Together with a pro-union work force and cut throat competition of Aldi/Lidl/Metro Walmart did indeed fail miserably (and no one misses them).

The bulk of the article is pretty good, though. It just opens and closes with half assed tie-ins to the big stories of the day (Uber and Trump).

It's basically an interesting post mortem of the Chinese government's dealings with Google and Apple, plus a few paragraphs of random hypotheticals to ignore.

> I draw stories from fantasy world

The author talks about the problems Google faced with the Chinese govt. Isn't that the bulk of the article?

With that he also says since Uber wasn't large enough to compete with Didi, that why Chinese Govt didn't need to intervene.

Title should be: "Here's a narrative that makes me feel good and righteous"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com