China Criticizes Subsidized Ride-Hailing Apps As Anti-Competitive (thestack.com) 75
An anonymous reader writes: China's minister of transport Yang Chuantang has warned that the current round of ferocious price-wars among China's leading ride-sharing app providers, including Didi Dache and Uber, represents an attempt to kill local competition with massively-subsidized price cuts that will not subsequently be sustained. Chuantang, speaking at the annual national assembly in Beijing, said that the subsidies "are aimed at occupying more market share within the short term and is competitively unfair for the taxi industry. It is unhealthy and cannot be sustained in the long term." Uber is currently investing (or, arguably, losing) $1 billion a year in its attempts to consolidate a place in the Chinese ride-sharing market.
Re:I've got a great business idea!!!1 (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an old market manipulation technique: give your product away to increase market share, and then cash in when you drive as many competitors as possible out of the market. It takes time to smelt metals, build assembly lines and crank up production.
But this doesn't work so well with services, especially those with little capital investment. A ridesharing service doesn't even have to build fast food stands.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an old market manipulation technique: give your product away to increase market share, and then cash in when you drive as many competitors as possible out of the market. It takes time to smelt metals, build assembly lines and crank up production.
But this doesn't work so well with services, especially those with little capital investment. A ridesharing service doesn't even have to build fast food stands.
No, a ridesharing app doesn't have capital but most of it's competitors do. If it runs all the taxis, buses, etc... out of business then jacks up it's rates, it takes time to assemble a new fleet of buses, routes, etc... at which time it could again lower its rates. A virtual company that can fade away and come back can cause havoc when competing against another industry that has significant startup cost. And this doesn't mean that the virtual company is better. There are many businesses with significa
Re: (Score:2)
Is this something Uber is only doing in China?
I've never heard the company subsidizing drivers here in the US???
That part sounds a bit fishy to me....
Re: (Score:2)
They mean "cheaper" than the guys who are paying us kickbacks....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think subsidy could be repurposed to include "any organization". It's a preferable english term to me than say, "perpetual venture capital injection" or "corporate welfare".
Re: (Score:2)
it takes time to assemble a new fleet of buses, routes, etc...
They'll be back on the street inside of a month. China is not some feeble developed world economy where endless paperwork has to be processed before anyone does anything. The endless paperwork does need to be processed, but that can happen after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll be back on the street inside of a month.
They will be back much quicker than that, because they will never be off the street. In most countries Uber competes with taxis. But in China, the taxi drivers are Uber drivers, and also Didi Diche drivers. Nearly every taxi driver has a smart phone will all the apps, as well as a meter. They take riders from any source. Most urban taxi passengers also have all the apps. I can't see how any of these services can "drive out" any other, since there is near-zero fixed costs to running a server. As soon
Re: (Score:2)
Given your name and previous comments, do you think that China will reach a point where they have more automobile owners? I've been to China few times and one of the things that I've noticed is a whole of automobiles there now. I mean, a lot. Even if you get outside of the main areas and tourist traps, there's still a lot more automobiles than I recollect.
Also of note, it's interesting how many Western automobiles I noticed there the last time I visited. I don't have numbers or research to back me up (I've
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the government should take steps to prevent other companies from doing short term dumping in an attempt to run them out of business.
Yes.... IMO the government should impose capital costs on these businesses.
I would suggest a tax paid upfront based on the number of unique vehicles used.
Example: $315 per Month per unique vehicle used with the service during that month.
It would probably be most useful if the registration and administration for this can only be done by the driver; go to the local D
Re: (Score:2)
the government should take steps to prevent other companies from doing short term dumping in an attempt to run them out of business.
Yes.... IMO the government should impose capital costs on these businesses.
I would suggest a tax paid upfront based on the number of unique vehicles used.
Example: $315 per Month per unique vehicle used with the service during that month.
It would probably be most useful if the registration and administration for this can only be done by the driver;
go to the local DMV: Cashiers check only. Then you get your sticker; Which the laws should be set up so the
"Ride sharing company" must then verify, scan, and track the status of.
Unless they paid $4000 for the whole year, with an extra $210 convenience fee, then next month, they must repeat
the same manual steps.
Essentially, a disincentive to bringing on contractors who will only make a part-time commitment.
Since they no longer get to enlist vehicles nearly for free and only pay driving labor.
The tax proceeds should be reserved for the purposes of covering damage claims: in case the
company becomes insolvent, and the taxing authority would also have the option later to use
proceeds to rebuild the local market, or to help provide new job-reeducation assistance for former commercial drivers
displaced from their jobs.
Is this sarcasm? I can't tell. Anyways, although preventing dumping is the responsibility of the government, I'm not sure what you're trying to solve with charging the driver for taking on part-time work. I have no problem with part-time workers. I actually think ride sharing apps would work better if they would have stayed ride sharing and people only picked up fare when they were going that direction anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
> Is this sarcasm?
I've seen their posts before and I do not think it is sarcasm. I am not sure what they're trying to accomplish but it means taxing someone so surely it's good?
This is a guess and not an accusation but I suspect that the tax would not involve anything they're currently involved in or intend to be involved in at some future time. I'd further suspect that they're not intimate with anyone that would be impacted by this particular tax.
It's similar, but not exactly alike, to those who rail ag
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you are willing to commit to being at least competitive with would-be upstarts, even if you still want to be profitable, the marketing momentum of being an established brand is potent stuff, even though the technical barriers to entry may be lower.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an old market manipulation technique: give your product away to increase market share, and then cash in when you drive as many competitors as possible out of the market.
It's something that should have been made illegal a long time ago.
You Must Not/May Not as a For-Profit entity come to market and offer services or goods in a competitive market for less than it costs you to provide that particular service or manufacture that good.
The cost to provide a service is at minimum the cost of any labor
totally agree with china on this (Score:2)
Chinese Republic of Hypocrites (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly every major industry in the US has been subsidized by the government too. Oil, gas, automobiles, software, farming, research, education, construction, mining, space...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Define subsidizing and then show how it is different in any other country for 7 out of 10 of your claims. (The government purchasing something for its own needs is not subsidizing.)
Funny how that works (Score:1)
You'd think China of all countries could appreciate a masterful application of dumping [latimes.com] when they see it.
Why bother? (Score:2)
Uber is just an app. If they want to pay Chinese drivers more than they charge Chinese customers, to get marketshare -- why not let them? If they raise their prices, people can switch to another app. The other app could be briefly subsidized as well, if needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's not going to happen. It's called network effects, and it prevents competitors from rising up.
It's the same reason Microsoft had no competitors in the consumer space until smartphones. All devs wrote for Windows because all customers were there, and all customers were there because all devs wrote for Windows.
Similarly, who would drive for [NotUber], all the customers use Uber. And who would use [NotUber], it has
Re: (Score:2)
But there should hardly be any network effects. Switching to the competition requires one button click. Drivers can drive for both Uber and not-Uber at the same time. An app could be made to have them bid on multiple driving apps, based on either time or price or both. In comparison, the Microsoft lock-in consists of millions of developer-hours dedicated to Microsoft systems, and similarly with employee training. The Facebook lock-in consists of having one place for all your friends, plus all the stuff you
Re: (Score:2)
1, large cost to switch the install base. There is a very large cost to switching large groups of people at the same time.
2, Uber will not let a single app control both Uber and not-Uber
I hope that's clear, I'm in a hurry. Can expand later if it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
For a Bunch of Communists (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You say that as a joke
Actually, not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
After he died that rat-bastard Deng Xiaoping hijacked the people's revolution onto the capitalist road, and China has been fucked ever since.
But we all get Teh Shiny at bargain-basement prices; so it's all good! (ducks) [/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
they have the right idea (Score:2)
This is exactly the problem (at least one big problem) with modern VC driven economics. The investors only care about knocking out the other competitors, not building a long term sustainable business. They monopolize one 'vertical' then move on to wrecking the next one. Amazon benefitted from a similar strategy. They want to burn money blowing out the whole 'ecosystem' of services that are at least priced high enough to keep operating. Obviously this has happened in plenty of other sectors of China's econom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, wait, wait... (Score:2)
Wow, that's rich. Sorry, not sorry I don't feel bad for them. I hope they learn from this and realize what a shitty tactic it is to engage in and change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, your federal government is owned in large part by corporations and yes they are winning many exemptions from regulations and preventing newcomers from entering the market. Hell, a large segment of your own people VOTE to make them exempt from regulations and to allow them to prevent newcomers from entering the market.
Chinese taxi drivers (Score:1)
Chinese taxi drivers, before ride-sharing, were horrible. They wouldn't stop, didn't want to work during certain times of day - rush hour, of course - charged extra to go anywhere, doubled and tripled up on customers so you'd have to visit several locations before you got to your destination, you name it they did it. The cabs were filthy, the seat belts didn't work (or were dirty and left a stripe on your nice clean clothes), the A/C didn't work, they wouldn't roll up the windows even in the dead of winte
Re: (Score:1)
Smells a little like bullshit. I didn't have that experience during the 5 years I was in Beijing and the 3 years I've been in Shenzhen. The only time they would switch off the clock, pull their ID plaque, and overcharge was if you took a taxi waiting outside a club in the Sanlitun area. In that instance, they become like the HeiChe (black taxi) drivers that camp outside the subway stations. Never had a taxi driver stop to pick up another passenger, ever. The ride sharing is hit or miss. Some of them a
He has a point... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Came here JUST to post this. My kingdom for a mod point.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd give up your kingdom for a mod point? Either ethereal e-penis has increased in value or the value of kingdoms has decreased significantly! No wonder nobody has kingdoms any more, they're trading them away for pennies on the dollar!
I'll give you my whole account, in fine standing, for a kingdom! Hell, I'll make you a second and third one if you happen to have more kingdoms. A single person has got to be worth more than a mod point! (I can't say for certain, I've never tried to buy a person.)
I do recall
Re: (Score:1)
I actually do have land... and a pony. They're not all they're cracked up to be, however, hence the excellent asking price. Have you ever seen a 900 pound animal that could get down on all four knees to shimmy under a chain blocking a door? I have. I have seen these things. I wish I hadn't. Little prick.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen a pony that would sit like a dog and ate pork chops. I've seen a miniature horse (which is not a pony) and bet on them when they were pulling sulkies - I was at an OTB facility. I'm not sure I want your pony. I guess, I'll just take the land and you can keep the pony.
Re: Magic Kingdomfor Sale - Sold! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do recall liking one of his series but I don't, for the life of me, recollect which it was - nor do I have energy to look. I'm assuming that I have it somewhere still but I've no idea where - it may be on a shelf or it may still be packed in a box somewhere. I don't remember being impressed with it and I do remember being a bit surprised that it was turned into a series - the book I read didn't really feel like the start of a series.
I was reading another series at the time. My memory is terrible but the n
Can we sop calling these ride sharing services. (Score:2)
In 99.9% of the cases (ok number pulled out of my !@#$) there is no ride sharing going on. The drivers are actively seeking passengers to take to the passengers destination. They aren't sharing their ride they are hiring out their services.
anti-competitive (Score:2)
Use of punishing price discounts by new entrants is not anti-competitive, it is actually more competitive.
Not that politicians don't misuse it just the same of course...
O RLY? (Score:2)
And if there's anybody that knows all about artificially lowering prices in order to destroy the competition and have the market to itself, it would be China.
hmmm (Score:2)
"...subsidies "are aimed at occupying more market share within the short term and is competitively unfair for the taxi industry"
But it's okay when The Chinese decide to subsidize Chinese industries to give that same unfairness against non-Chinese Industry:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
http://www.economist.com/news/... [economist.com]
Allow me to repeat it... (Score:2)
China Criticizes Subsidized Ride-Hailing Apps As Anti-Competitive
Ah, this sounds like music to my ears!
Play it again, Sam! :-)
I'm not crying in Shanghai (Score:2)
At least when there are deals, it's cheaper to get a ride in what's often a nice, shiny luxury sedan than a worn-down, stinky taxi.
So what if Uber gets the whole market? The instant their prices go above what's competitive, someone will spend a few hundred thousand bucks to start a cheaper service. People here can be kind of stingy, which seems to be what Uber is banking on.