BYD builds fastest car

> The small amount of technology transfer that happened in 2011..

Sure, China's tech transfer in BEV/hybrid/battery tech had been going on since 2011 and continued until fairly recently, not just in 2011 (read NYT article cited in example #1).

> No, technology transfer is not blanket banned by the WTO. It's actually encouraged for developing countries.

Wrong. That only applies to LDC, or Least Developed Countries under the TRIPS Agreement, GATT 1994. And we aren't exactly talking about high-tech EV/battery or semi-manufacturing tech, but better farming, irrigating, fertilizer techniques in countries like Bukina Faso, Angola, or Haiti. The rules aren't for China to exploit.

China's "developing" status allows "additional transition time," in implementing necessary local IP regulatory regime. China's WTO Accession was in 2001 and this transition arrangement/allowance expired about 15 years ago and China is still inconsistent with the global standard (see for instance EU's recent anti-injunction suit). Nothing under the WTO allows China's illegal forced tech transfer/IP theft otherwise.

> I don't think the WTO has ruled on that complaint.

Sure, there was hardly anything for China to deny or defend. China instead agreed to reform their foreign investment laws (FIL): no further market restriction or force tech transfer, but took another 3 years to implement in 2020/2021 and many are still afraid to pull out some 4-5 years later; again Tesla being the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without a JV in China.

> The US faced virtually no competition for EV vehicles from China before 2022. The protectionist measures came up as soon as the competition appeared.

BYD's electric bus business in California has been around since the early 2010s. The Japanese + Korean battery producers, such as LG, Panasonic, Samsung, etc banned in China since 2015 under Xi's protectionism (aka, Made-In-China 2025), have been in the US without any restriction for well over a decade. The last American battery producer, A123, collapsed in 2012 and the foreign battery producers have dominated the US market without any restriction. Unlike China, America has no problem collaborating with foreign trading partners.

> You're really going to claim that China does not lead in current-day research?

Not really. Many are awe'ed as China's illegally subsidized overcapacity floods their local market, but often conflate the two: market domination vs. tech innovation. China's competitive edge is a function of China's illegal subsidies and protectionism. No evidence to believe Chinese EV/battery producers can compete without daddy Xi's big wallet or baton to keep away foreign competition.

> You're reaching back to decades ago, ..

Sure, most lithium ion battery tech used in today's EVs were developed over 20+ years ago and most relevant EV battery patents developed past 10-15 years are by Japanese/Koreans and they will dominate for quite some time. Again, this is why China has focused on LFP (effectively royalty free after 2022/2023 for export) or post-lithium batteries instead. In other word, China is likely to benefit from their R&D in post-lithium once they are commercialized and mass-produced at scale years down the road, if ever.

> Government subsidies are fairly small, and are paid to the consumer (not the producer), ...

Already cited an article showing that China's consumer direct subsidy was significant (see example #1, $19+K per EV which more or less continued until 2019) and another showing that the consumer subsidy was anything, but pro-consumer (see example #3) -- consumer's choice was limited to EVs with Chinese batteries to funnel subsidies back to their local battery "champions" only -- ie, anti-consumer. China's neo-mercantile economy prioritizes national "champions," not consumers.

> so they don't affect the cost of exported goods.

Of course they do. That's what EU's recent probe (2024/1866 and 2024/27) revealed and also why China hand them out like Halloween candies.

> Chinese companies are selling EVs in Europe at far, far higher prices than in China.

Again, China's local price or cost of production don't mean jack -- China is a non-market-economy and their local price/cost products are artificially deflated by the Chinese gov't's illegal subsidies. Also cited EU's Anti-dumping Regulation (2016/1036) explaining how the "normal value" is determined in such a case (see Article 2, Determination of dumping; A. NORMAL VALUE). It's well to remember however that Chinese EVs are countervailed under EU's Anti-Subsidy Regulation (2016/1037) where the price level/normal value is NOT a major consideration.

Thanks for playing, but I don't like talking in circles. Good bye.

Personally, right now I'd invest in high speed trains. It's not "disruptive new tech", it's proven tech, so not exciting to a lot of the HN crowd hoping for AI miracles for self-driving. But it could be quite disruptive to car infrastructure and airlines given the right funding and development plan.

Yes this is exactly why there is the qualifier "my experience". Others may have different experiences but I would easily argue that most would side that way as well. There is a reason the Chinese crap stereotype exists. And there is also a reason most Chinese made stuff selling well in western countries are still largely designed and marketed by western companies.

Also, I have hundreds of orders for various product categories, ranging from tech/IT stuff, passing by audio equipment, kitchen tools, common household items and clothing. My experience told me that when it's considerably cheaper it's definitely going to be much worse and when it's just price competitive, there is a high level of "chance" that it's still going to have some weird flaw that will make the product not as good even if it is decently built.

At some point it is not just anecdotal evidence and a pattern, I am really curious why you would want to invalidate my experience. China is a very different country with very different set of standards and expectations; it is not something as controversial as you seem to think.

No, for many of the same reasons I don't think it made sense for them to invest in cars.

But also, yes, for the same reasons I appreciate that Walt Disney invested in trains and monorails. While Disney's train-oriented Experimental Prototype City of Tomorrow vision never got properly built, it was still such a cool disruptive vision to explore. Also, not just the Epcot theme park that borrows the name but not the concept/ideals, all of the Disney Parks owe their existence to Disney's interests in trains. (The first theme park ride Walt Disney was involved with was building a rideable model train in his own backyard.) I don't expect Apple to build theme parks either, but if investments in train technology and vision pay off with similar secondary effects that maybe the trains don't get built but other cool things do, Disney offers the precedent that an interest in trains by a company that isn't supposed to be in the train business can produce interesting results.

So basically, you don't believe cars are the future - therefore Apple should not invest in cars?