4 ms·
> > > 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 up
by erdevs 10y ago
> > > 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 10y ago> 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 10y agoThanks 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.