I don't think that UberChina's failure to win against Didi was due to state sponsorship. Didi had a better product tailored to the Chinese market, better operations people who conducted local campaigns in more cities, and only one market to compete in, as opposed to Uber's worldwide competition.

It was apparent that Didi had achieved the network effects necessary to overcome Uber in volume. Both companies wanted to focus on revenue so it was savvy of Didi to purchase UberChina so they could reduce ride subsidies.

I think that the success of UberChina, along with Yum! and Wal-Mart, demonstrate that it is possible to prevail in the difficult Chinese market.

> a better product tailored to the Chinese market

What were the differences?

According to HN commenters in China, Didi understood that government employees needed a standard voucher so Didi made its generation automatic in the app. UberChina apparently never did.

It was used as an example to illustrate that Didi did the little things that remove friction for its customers. Didi also recruited drivers in smaller cities; its coverage was superior to UberChina's.

and MUJI, also very successful in China

I think there's a case to be made that the tax policies that apply to investor organizations and participants qualifies as a form of state sponsorship.

Do they nearly guarantee people will buy the app despite foreign competition? This sort of thing happens in China more than over here. U.S. consumers use or buy products from many places with significant percentage coming from China at some point. Something just being American sponsored doesn't usually cut it.

There's also Per Capita to consider. Obviously an anything in China will have more actual humans using it - there's a billion of them there.