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