12 ms·

China’s anti-trust regulators are investigating the Didi-Uber deal

36 points by smb06 10y ago

robbiep 10y ago
China has anti-trust regulators?!
- ffggvv 10y ago
  And the point of your comment is?
- valarauca1 10y ago
  China is technically (but not exactly in practice, it identifies as nonetheless) a Socialist State where the government has complete control of private enterprise. Regardless of your opinion on China's execution of this model (Market Socialism, vs Croney Capitalism) the national government reserves the right to do what ever it sees fit with companies, when ever it sees fit. What ever term is used in the press is merely the political narrative framing for this, no so far as any branch/ministry/bureau of the government.
  - germanier 10y ago
    The government department in this story is literally called Anti-monopoly Bureau (反垄断局, part of the Ministry of Commerce). That name is not some spin of the press, it is what's written on their building.
- shimon_e 10y ago
  Yes but their interests are not the same as other country anti-trust regulators.
- balabaster 10y ago
  Between what we hear out of the Western news agencies, various activist groups, hackers and whatnot, the more I hear about China, the more questions I have about what we (the Western public) know about China. Given China's behaviour towards Western corporations (Google et. al.) which was reported in such a way as can only be interpreted as antitrust, this does seem to be paradoxical. Though, the more I read about Chinese politics the less adds up, much like Western politics. It makes me wonder if everything we're taught about China is fabrication, propaganda, lies, half truths and spin - much the same as our own political system.
  - devy 10y ago
    > Though, the more I read about Chinese politics the less adds up, much like Western politics. It makes me wonder if everything we're taught about China is fabrication, propaganda, lies, half truths and spin - much the same as our own political system. Bearing the risk the getting a lot of down votes, I can tell you that there is definitely truth in your statement. And from the comments I read here, I sense that generally HN has a out of proportionally negative attitude towards China related news (Not this story in particular though, WSJ has been fairly neutral. NYT, on the other hand, is the extreme of negativism towards China, for example). Disclaimer: I grew up in China the first half of my life and immigrated to the U.S. since college. And I read both Chinese/English news media equally and with healthy dose of skepticism.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      You can judge the authenticity of a news source by whether or not it is blocked by the GFW. In general, the chinese government doesn't block anything it doesn't feel threatened by, which means there are elements of dangerous truths in their reporting. So WSJ and NYT are both blocked, odd because WSJ at least is heavily pro China, but I guess they are reasonable news sources in China given government action. CNN and Fox News aren't blocked, so I would stay away from them.
      - devy 10y ago
        No, you simply cannot judge the "authenticity of a news source" by GFW blockage, because by that logic, you are entrusting GFW to be your meter of authenticity - which is absurd. In fact, GFW has been a lot more sophisticated than a black list of sites, it applies ML / traffic pattern analysis capabilities which makes it even less relevant of "authenticity of a news source". Do a Google search of GFW analysis you will get a lot of details on that. > odd because WSJ at least is heavily pro China Why do you think so?
        seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        Chinese gov blocks information it deems dangerous, like financial info via Bloomberg, this is useful information if you want to make wise rather than nationalistic investment decisions. So ya, what the GFW blocks is a useful guide in what you should read. WSJ is incredibly pro business and doesn't give much care about human rights. They take the capatalist pro business guys point of view in ignoring much of the bad about China to make money.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Yes, they've actually been enforcing them since a few years ago, mostly against western companies that have been deemed too successful. It doesn't apply at all to SOEs, of course.
dragonbonheur 10y ago
Didi could have let Uber die by itself and get the totality of the Chinese market on its own without sacrificing anything. As it stands now, Uber gets shares of Didi when they were going bankrupt. It's like saying "I'm broke now, but I still want your money!". It may not feel fair to some foreign observers who believe China is "big bad, evil!" but it's natural that some Chinese people question the deal- Apple owns part of Didi, now Uber- who's next? "Activist" bean-counter vampire shareholders like Carl Icahn? It would be a big mistake for the Chinese to let people like him get a foothold in China or anywhere near Chinese companies.
- jmknoll 10y ago
  > Didi could have let Uber die by itself and get the totality of the Chinese market on its own without sacrificing anything. The very point of the deal was because both companies were hemorrhaging their investors' money, and neither wanted to sacrifice any more. If that's what the regulators are investigating, then they're doing their job. Two companies collaborating to stop losing money is pretty close to the definitely of a cartel. This keeps getting framed as a China vs the World thing, as so many things Chinese do, but what really happened here is that two companies, backed by a set of the largest multinational investors in the world, are collaborating to screw the consumer, who this time is the average Chinese user of Didi or Uber.
- ww520 10y ago
  It's a calculation of: I'm losing X/year, it takes N years for them to die, and they want Y to go away now. Is X*N > Y? If yes, then I'll pay Y to them to go away now.

36 points by smb06 10y ago

robbiep 10y ago

China has anti-trust regulators?!

ffggvv 10y ago
And the point of your comment is?
valarauca1 10y ago
China is technically (but not exactly in practice, it identifies as nonetheless) a Socialist State where the government has complete control of private enterprise. Regardless of your opinion on China's execution of this model (Market Socialism, vs Croney Capitalism) the national government reserves the right to do what ever it sees fit with companies, when ever it sees fit. What ever term is used in the press is merely the political narrative framing for this, no so far as any branch/ministry/bureau of the government.
- germanier 10y ago
  The government department in this story is literally called Anti-monopoly Bureau (反垄断局, part of the Ministry of Commerce). That name is not some spin of the press, it is what's written on their building.
shimon_e 10y ago
Yes but their interests are not the same as other country anti-trust regulators.
balabaster 10y ago
Between what we hear out of the Western news agencies, various activist groups, hackers and whatnot, the more I hear about China, the more questions I have about what we (the Western public) know about China. Given China's behaviour towards Western corporations (Google et. al.) which was reported in such a way as can only be interpreted as antitrust, this does seem to be paradoxical. Though, the more I read about Chinese politics the less adds up, much like Western politics. It makes me wonder if everything we're taught about China is fabrication, propaganda, lies, half truths and spin - much the same as our own political system.
- devy 10y ago
  > Though, the more I read about Chinese politics the less adds up, much like Western politics. It makes me wonder if everything we're taught about China is fabrication, propaganda, lies, half truths and spin - much the same as our own political system. Bearing the risk the getting a lot of down votes, I can tell you that there is definitely truth in your statement. And from the comments I read here, I sense that generally HN has a out of proportionally negative attitude towards China related news (Not this story in particular though, WSJ has been fairly neutral. NYT, on the other hand, is the extreme of negativism towards China, for example). Disclaimer: I grew up in China the first half of my life and immigrated to the U.S. since college. And I read both Chinese/English news media equally and with healthy dose of skepticism.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    You can judge the authenticity of a news source by whether or not it is blocked by the GFW. In general, the chinese government doesn't block anything it doesn't feel threatened by, which means there are elements of dangerous truths in their reporting. So WSJ and NYT are both blocked, odd because WSJ at least is heavily pro China, but I guess they are reasonable news sources in China given government action. CNN and Fox News aren't blocked, so I would stay away from them.
    - devy 10y ago
      No, you simply cannot judge the "authenticity of a news source" by GFW blockage, because by that logic, you are entrusting GFW to be your meter of authenticity - which is absurd. In fact, GFW has been a lot more sophisticated than a black list of sites, it applies ML / traffic pattern analysis capabilities which makes it even less relevant of "authenticity of a news source". Do a Google search of GFW analysis you will get a lot of details on that. > odd because WSJ at least is heavily pro China Why do you think so?
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        Chinese gov blocks information it deems dangerous, like financial info via Bloomberg, this is useful information if you want to make wise rather than nationalistic investment decisions. So ya, what the GFW blocks is a useful guide in what you should read. WSJ is incredibly pro business and doesn't give much care about human rights. They take the capatalist pro business guys point of view in ignoring much of the bad about China to make money.
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Yes, they've actually been enforcing them since a few years ago, mostly against western companies that have been deemed too successful. It doesn't apply at all to SOEs, of course.

dragonbonheur 10y ago

Didi could have let Uber die by itself and get the totality of the Chinese market on its own without sacrificing anything. As it stands now, Uber gets shares of Didi when they were going bankrupt. It's like saying "I'm broke now, but I still want your money!". It may not feel fair to some foreign observers who believe China is "big bad, evil!" but it's natural that some Chinese people question the deal- Apple owns part of Didi, now Uber- who's next? "Activist" bean-counter vampire shareholders like Carl Icahn? It would be a big mistake for the Chinese to let people like him get a foothold in China or anywhere near Chinese companies.

jmknoll 10y ago
> Didi could have let Uber die by itself and get the totality of the Chinese market on its own without sacrificing anything. The very point of the deal was because both companies were hemorrhaging their investors' money, and neither wanted to sacrifice any more. If that's what the regulators are investigating, then they're doing their job. Two companies collaborating to stop losing money is pretty close to the definitely of a cartel. This keeps getting framed as a China vs the World thing, as so many things Chinese do, but what really happened here is that two companies, backed by a set of the largest multinational investors in the world, are collaborating to screw the consumer, who this time is the average Chinese user of Didi or Uber.
ww520 10y ago
It's a calculation of: I'm losing X/year, it takes N years for them to die, and they want Y to go away now. Is X*N > Y? If yes, then I'll pay Y to them to go away now.