Apple-Backed Didi Chuxing to Purchase Uber's Ride-Hailing Operations in China

[Max Portakabin]

Guess what? Taxi companies don't vet their own taxi drivers either and break their own laws. In the U.S., riding in a taxi vs. Uber is night and day. I'll take a clean ride with an english speaking driver anyday over what traditional yellow cabs offer (all drivers on their phones during entire ride and a jars or urine stashed under their seats-no joking).

"Guess what?" - it's different in the UK. Uber is the only company allowed to have drivers un-vetted and allowed to on the roads. All private hire and black taxis must be vetted by either the Hackney Carriage Office or the local government.

 

[macfacts]

Why is Uber despicable?...

It is because Uber "uses" its drivers. Uber doesn't pay for the drivers car maintenance, medical issues, insurance problems.

 

[Jakexb]

Oh snap. We're starting to see the puzzle pieces fall into place.

Now just invest / buy Lyft!

(Fun fact: Didi already did more rides daily than Uber -- not just in China, but worldwide)

 

[flaw600]

This is true in Los Angeles. I feel annoying acting as a back seat driver, but if I don't, these guys get lost. And whatever navigator they're using stinks here. It thinks some one-way streets are two-way and thinks the entrance to every address is in the alley.

Interestingly, they use Google Maps in the Uber app, and everyone that I've seen not using the in-app navigator uses the GM app
[doublepost=1470063946][/doublepost]

Great.

Uber is a despicable company with the ethics of Google, and Apple is now a part of that.

I'm trying to remember when Apple last did something that surprised and delighted me; perhaps it was the Cookie Monster ad.

Thank goodness for small mercies.

Exactly how is Uber a despicable company and how is Google unethical? Even Cook has never called Google unethical.

 

[mdelvecchio]

They do, in fact vet their drivers. So that's a total lie.

As far as "flouting taxi laws in the UK," I have no direct knowledge of what you're referring to. But I do know how it's gone in several large cities here in the US. Uber comes into a city and disrupts the status quo, which was a regulatory agency that protected a cloistered business (sanctioned cabs) that was essentially screwing over their clientele, and providing lousy service. Many cities' cab regulatory agencies, which were actually basically in the back pockets of the two to four "sanctioned" cab companies tried to pass new regulations that would have essentially outlawed Uber, and taken us back to the time when the oligarchy of cab companies would still have a stranglehold on the market. But in most cities the antiseptic of public scrutiny beat back the cronyism, and the customer now gets a choice.

Uber is not a perfect company. And as with any new and disruptive player in an established industry there are going to be hiccups and things to sort out. But they are not a "despicable company," and I would rather get in an Uber any day than ride in almost any taxi in the US.

100 times, this. in my city (new orleans) the taxis have been atrocious for decades, violating the law and providing lousy service. and the city's regulatory agency workers were busted several times for corruption and collusion with the cab companies. the service was awful and people were at the mercy of these poorly run and corrupt participants.

uber may not be perfect, but its improved the service i receive in exchange for my money, and i love this service. wont go back to cabs.

 

[flaw600]

They don't vet their drivers and flagrantly flout taxi laws in the UK.

They run background checks, which is fairly standard. And since they're not taxis, they're not really obligated to follow taxi laws.
[doublepost=1470064143][/doublepost]

So, there are quite a few successful American companies in China. A lot of them are in the service and manufacturing industry, even the entertainment industry is relatively successful as long as artists don't wade into political issues.

The issue is technology companies, and really its a tit-for-tat battle. America refuses to let Huawei robust access to the American market on 'national security concerns' so China does the same to U.S technology companies. Part of it is letting domestic technology companies lead the way (i.e. infant industry argument) another is national security reasons. Apple is an interesting case. Apple's hardware business isn't at risk in China (China isn't going to ban Apple products). But, it's services (iCloud, iTunes, ext.) all must comply with Chinese laws. The court cases its losing are more a show of force than anything long lasting and basically a warning shot to Apple rather than anything more. Apple is actually a really successful company in China, despite what click-bait articles might suggest, any Anti-Apple protests are short-lived and have zero support from the vast majority. It's a way to show patriotism more than anti-americanism or anti-american company.

Uber was pretty successful in China and rivaled Didi pretty well. The trouble is that both companies aren't earning much money so consolidation is a step towards profitability. Even before this, Uber and Didi were technically illegal, but the CCP turned a blind eye for the most part. So, this isn't so much about Uber not being successful in China because it's an American company, more about consolidating and monopolizing the market rather than competition.

And, honestly, it wouldn't surprise me Apple were involved in these talks somehow. This could be a huge round-about way to get access to mapping data and self-driving car technology. It's not secret Uber and Didi are investing in self-driving cars, along with Baidu and other Chinese companies. Plus, remember that time Apple invested $1 Billion in Didi and then Didi invested $1 Billion Uber... That's just a coincidence, right?... It couldn't be Apple playing a long-con...could it? No... Never! Companies are honest, and straightforward and trustworthy!

You do realize that Huawei is selling phones in the US, right?

 

[Thunderhawks]

Guess what? Taxi companies don't vet their own taxi drivers either and break their own laws. In the U.S., riding in a taxi vs. Uber is night and day. I'll take a clean ride with an english speaking driver anyday over what traditional yellow cabs offer (all drivers on their phones during entire ride and a jars or urine stashed under their seats-no joking).

In my town the city is trying to figure out how to limit all the illegal "Taxis". That is a 24/7 deal and we all know
city government doesn't really work odd hours.
I can confirm the cell phone use , as I see them driving while talking, not obeying lights, passing when they are not allowed to, many drivers without even a valid license.

I guess initially that new business was unexpected and as it grows and cause problems the laws will address what needs to be fixed. It's Wild West status for the moment, until the sheriff arrives.

BTW: 1 Billion means Apple just opened it's petty cash a little.

BTW#2 I always thought it was Deutschland uber alles !

 

[flaw600]

It is because Uber "uses" its drivers. Uber doesn't pay for the drivers car maintenance, medical issues, insurance problems.

They actually do pay for car insurance, so...mainly because Lyft did it first, but still

 

[Tech198]

Just proves one thing...

If the Apple car is a "best kept secret" it shows they can actually protect something, those in the supply chain cannot weather true or not.

 

[Carlanga]

I guess that is why apple bought w them instead of uber...
Insider secrets....

 

[Glideslope]

It is because Uber "uses" its drivers. Uber doesn't pay for the drivers car maintenance, medical issues, insurance problems.

Please, go back in your Hole Bernie. No one holds a gun to the heads of the millions of individuals who drive for Uber Globally. The only skill required for this position is a drivers license and means to defend yourself at times. They are compensated in an equitable manner for their skill set.

 

[x0vash0x]

They run background checks, which is fairly standard. And since they're not taxis, they're not really obligated to follow taxi laws.
[doublepost=1470064143][/doublepost]
You do realize that Huawei is selling phones in the US, right?

Correct. But Huawei, HTC, ZTE, and so on sell more than phones. Namely internet and other networking and communications infrastructure equipment, which the U.S basically bans Chinese companies from selling or operating in the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Security_concerns
https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/huawei-zte investigative report (final).pdf
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsysm/u.s.-blocks-huawei-from-government-networks.html

In the final analysis, the report concluded that,"risks associated with Huawei’s and ZTE’s provision of equipment to U.S. critical infrastructure could undermine core U.S. national-security interests."

As such, the committee recommended that no U.S. government systems should include equipment from Huawei or ZTE. Additionally, the report suggest that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) should block any mergers or takeovers that involve Huawei and ZTE.

The U.S government doesn't give a crap about their phone business, but they sure as Hell aren't going to let any Chinese tech company be involved in any 'critical infrastructure'. But, the exact same goes for U.S companies in China. Chinese sure as Hell aren't going to let any U.S tech company be involved in any 'critical infrastructure'. Which, really, makes complete sense from a national security perspective.

Here's a good article about China doing the same things to U.S tech companies:http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/in-cyber-dispute-with-us-china-targets-ibm-cisco/

Like I said before, it's a tit-for-tat battle. Currently, it's been in a lull since 2012 - 2014. But, it could heat up again.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Correct. But Huawei, HTC, ZTE, and so on sell more than phones. Namely internet and other networking and communications infrastructure equipment, which the U.S basically bans Chinese companies from selling or operating in the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Security_concerns
https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/huawei-zte investigative report (final).pdf
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsysm/u.s.-blocks-huawei-from-government-networks.html



The U.S government doesn't give a crap about their phone business, but they sure as Hell aren't going to let any Chinese tech company be involved in any 'critical infrastructure'. But, the exact same goes for U.S companies in China. Chinese sure as Hell aren't going to let any U.S tech company be involved in any 'critical infrastructure'. Which, really, makes complete sense from a national security perspective.

Here's a good article about China doing the same things to U.S tech companies:http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/in-cyber-dispute-with-us-china-targets-ibm-cisco/

Like I said before, it's a tit-for-tat battle. Currently, it's been in a lull since 2012 - 2014. But, it could heat up again.

You know what, the U.S built the china !infrastructure!

 

[osaga]

Left should ditch the mustache, rebrand with a clean logo, bump up the drivers car model year requirements, require drivers to offer water and swedish fish, run 5sec commercials that say "Lyft is cheaper than Uber" and do some Richard Brandson style free advertising. I think it's early enough for them to knock a few billion off uber's ridiculous valuation. I have yet to use lyft.

 

[flaw600]

Correct. But Huawei, HTC, ZTE, and so on sell more than phones. Namely internet and other networking and communications infrastructure equipment, which the U.S basically bans Chinese companies from selling or operating in the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#Security_concerns
https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/huawei-zte investigative report (final).pdf
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsysm/u.s.-blocks-huawei-from-government-networks.html



The U.S government doesn't give a crap about their phone business, but they sure as Hell aren't going to let any Chinese tech company be involved in any 'critical infrastructure'. But, the exact same goes for U.S companies in China. Chinese sure as Hell aren't going to let any U.S tech company be involved in any 'critical infrastructure'. Which, really, makes complete sense from a national security perspective.

Here's a good article about China doing the same things to U.S tech companies:http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/in-cyber-dispute-with-us-china-targets-ibm-cisco/

Like I said before, it's a tit-for-tat battle. Currently, it's been in a lull since 2012 - 2014. But, it could heat up again.

Since when are phones critical infrastructure?

 

[x0vash0x]

Since when are phones critical infrastructure?

They aren't. I never said they were, and I'm not sure your point in bringing it up.