[dirtyid]

> China has completely blocked US services from Google to Uber

Western social media platform are welcome to participate in China if they follow local laws - in this case onerous censorship requirements, which every domestic company comply to. That's what project Dragonfly was for, but internal Google politics killed it. Bing still operates fine in China while Google and Facebook still makes billions off Chinese adsales. For some reason people find it appalling that US companies have to operate by foreign laws when operating abroad. As far as I know, TikTok keeps US data on US servers. I'm not sure about Europe, but data siloing regulations is becoming the norm as countries realize the importance of domestic information control. So yes, the US/EU should do the same and if Chinese companies don't want to comply they should get booted from the market.

Uber's story is more complicated. At the end of the day, Uber and many Chinese rideshare startups got out competed by Didi Chuxing. One narrative is various local and national regulations on ride sharing made gave domestic entrants and unfair competitive advantage, but Uber had a strategic partnership with Baidu (to circumvent Google Map block) which had every interest in Uber succeeding.

[foepys]

Didn't China require any foreign company to be controlled by Chinese to get access to the Chinese market?

I heard that they relaxed those restrictions a bit to appease the WTO but in practice are often still denying basic permits for foreign companies until they can show to have a ≥51% Chinese share.

[est]

> Didn't China require any foreign company to be controlled by Chinese to get access to the Chinese market?

It varies by industry. And loosened quite a bit since the trade war.

The most recent case:

Exxon Mobil starts building $10 billion China petrochemical complex

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-china-petroche...

Now Shanghai FTZ allows foreign Internet services operate without the ICP licence. Interesting times.

[dirtyid]

Look up WFOE, wholly owned foreign enterprises. There were indeed a lot of restrictions and pressure towards Joint Ventures, but conditions have relaxed a lot over the years and continues to, i.e. financial services last year. Motorola, Lucent, GM had WFOE arrangements (certain plants) in the mid 90s. Also keep in mind JVs provide foreign companies local expertise and massive subsidies, free land among other schemes. Foreign companies knew exactly what they were getting themselves into since the mid 90s, there are certain strategic sectors where JVs is expected, but companies also pick JV because frequently it was a good deal. You have to keep in mind a lot of the narrative around Chinese business is shaped by huge companies with loud lobbying voices in strategically important industries. For example the last US Shanghai Chamber of Commerce surveys concludes something like 95%+ of US companies in China doesn't care about IP... because most companies business models aren't based around IP. So you won't hear their complaints because mostly, foreign companies in China operate fine, particularly those that serve the Chinese market.

[dis-sys]

> Didn't China require any foreign company to be controlled by Chinese to get access to the Chinese market?

This has been explained like hundreds of times on HN. If you truly believe such nonsense, there are one simple question to ask - what Chinese business entity is control Microsoft/Apple/Intel when they enjoyed all those revenues from the Chinese market.

[foepys]

I know that HN is living in a bubble but you realize that there are more industries besides tech and FAANG? Car manufacturers and their thousands of suppliers for example.

Wikipedia says regarding Volkswagen in China:

> In 1984, Volkswagen signed a 25-year contract to make passenger cars in Shanghai. Since, at that time, vehicle manufacturers could not own a majority stake in a manufacturing plant, Volkswagen's venture took the limit of 50 per cent foreign ownership.

I'm glad that someone else answered my comment sincerely instead of making a snarky comment that turns out to be wrong.

[belltaco]

> Car manufacturers and their thousands of suppliers for example.

How come people are not aware of this? Did Tesla have to give up controlling ownership to set up a plant in China?

https://europe.autonews.com/article/20180417/COPY/304179943/...

[cameronh90]

I don't know if it's legally required, but in China:

* Azure is provided by 21Vianet

* AWS is provided by Sinnet and NWCD

Generally speaking, serving the Chinese market is rather difficult as a foreign entity. My understanding is that unless you export more than 50% of the production value, you need to have a local partner. And even that's only allowed in certain industries.

[random314]

> For some reason people find it appalling that US companies have to operate by foreign laws when operating abroad.

Sure, that is the reason why people were appalled - some reason -can't clearly put a finger on it.