While Chinese netizens laid wreaths outside the Google headquarters in Beijing yesterday, a short distance away the executives of Baidu, the biggest Chinese search engine, must have been thinking of popping champagne corks.
Google’s decision to pick a public fight with the censors is almost certain to cement Baidu’s control of the world’s fastest growing Internet market, in which dominance requires compliance.
While the move has won plaudits from freedom-of-expression groups, business-minded critics said Google had made a strategic error.
“This is the most stupid decision in their history,” Tang Jun (唐駿), a former president of Microsoft China, told Eastday.com. “Giving up China means giving up half of the world.”
But the binning of the “devil’s bargain,” accepted by many foreign firms in order to do business in China, is determined by a cost analysis taking account of brand value as well as profit.
In financial terms, Google.cn’s filtering of information on politically sensitive topics has not been well rewarded. While the Chinese Internet market has expanded to 338 million people, Google’s business in China has been undermined by clashes with the censors and an uneven playing field. “Guge” (谷歌), as the firm is known locally, has 12 percent to 17 percent of the queries, and 33 percent of the income in the Chinese search market. Baidu has almost all the rest.
While Google’s 800 staff could lose their jobs now, the impact on the firm’s global revenues will be small, perhaps 1 percent to 2 percent of the total. This has prompted cynicism over its motives behind the decision to champion free speech.
Rumors about the firm quitting China had been circulating since September, when Lee Kai-fu (李開復), a former chief executive, left to set up his own venture.
Several other leading US Internet companies, including eBay and Yahoo, have beaten a retreat or changed strategy in recent years after failing to challenge Chinese rivals. If Google is pushed out of this market now for adopting a confrontational stance, it could regain lost credibility overseas.
Kaiser Kuo, a consultant to Youku, a video-sharing Web site, said of Google’s position: “It looks like a smokescreen of sanctimony ... being done to draw the eye away from the ignominy of a humiliating retreat. But I suspect their motives are more earnest. Google may have a paltry market share compared to Baidu, but this is not a market to be sneezed at.”
In the long-term, analysts said, China’s domestic market would be a loser, too.
“If Google goes, Baidu will be the only giant in China’s search engine market. A monopolized market can’t be healthy,” said Cao Junbo (曹軍波), chief analyst at iResearch.
Google’s move also reflects badly on firms that do comply with the censors.
Hu Yong, a new-media academic, said: “Google’s market share is not very big, but their loss would definitely not be good for the Chinese market. It damages the image and credibility of the internet industry.”
Baidu declined to comment on the fate of its competitor but said it had no intention of following suit by challenging the censors.
“Baidu will always go along with Chinese laws,” a spokesman said.
Yahoo, Microsoft and Cisco accept that principle, but human rights groups said Google’s revelations on the hacking and its stand on censorship could set an example.
“This is a wake-up call to the international community about the real risks of doing business in China, especially in the information communications technology industry — an industry essential to the protection of freedom of expression and privacy rights,” said Sharon Hom, executive director of Human Rights in China.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS