Why Did Uber China Fail? Lessons from Business Model Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very interesting and concerns a very current topic related to the functioning of the Uber ridesharing system. Taking up the subject related to the Chinese market is all the more interesting due to the lack of a large number of studies in this area. Therefore, the proposed work fills the literal gap.

Overall, the article is correct. However, it has several aspects to improve prior to publication.

From an editing point of view:
1. The order of literature should be changed. References to references in the text start from [1,2,45,46,49] and should from [1,2,3 ...]. It is a matter of the authors arranging the literature alphabetically.
2. The quality of the pictures could be a little better.

From the substantive point of view:
1. In the introduction part, please add a sentence specifying the specific purpose of the article.
2. Please add a short section on methodology where all the analytical steps of the article will be described. What kind of data was selected, where it was collected from, etc. You can link it to the chapter on comparing business models.

3. In the discussion, please compare the developed business models to the general business model of shared mobility services presented in the work 'Open Innovation Business Model as an Opportunity to Enhance the Development of Sustainable Shared Mobility Industry' and to the general model of car-sharing services' From the Classic Business Model is Open Innovation and Data Sharing — The Concept of an Open Car-Sharing Business Model '. Please indicate how these services function in other countries - whether we are talking about a recession or development.

4. Please refer to the concept of creating open innovation in the shared mobility sector. Studies on 'Integrating a business model perspective into transition theory: The example of new mobility services',' A Critical Review of New Mobility Services for Urban Transport '' Business innovations in the new mobility market during the covid ‐ 19 with the possibility of open business model innovation 'and' The future mobility of the world population '.

5. Please present the summary as a person, the chapter where it will be indicated whether the goal of the article has been achieved. Please include the indicated limitations and further research plans of the authors.

 the authors.

Author Response

First of all, thank you for reviewing our paper. We also thank you for your helpful comments and feedback. They were a great help to revise and improve our paper. You can check our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

the paper is clear and well structured, only I suggest to consider protectionism and the intervention of government to protect national companies compared to foreign ones.

This aspects is just mentioned, but not irrelevant, considering the target market. 

The main question addressed by the research is  about the intense competition between global giants Uber and Didi in the Chinese ride-hailing market. Specifically they focus on the business models of the two companies, highlighting the reason of the success of Didi and the failure of Uber

The topic is interesting and current, I leave to you the evaluation on the consistency with your journal.

The approach doesn't follow any traditional scheme, but seems robust; a better explanation of the research design could be appreciated. 

It compares in a convincing way the two business models, but, as I wrote in my suggestions, it doesn't consider Chinese protectionism and political ingerence, also in the light of the recent delisting from NYSE

The level of English is acceptable and the reading is quite smooth. 

The conclusions are in line with the article. The originality of the theme makes it difficult to search for literature in support of the conclusions. I reiterate the opportunity to develop the theme of Chinese protectionism that may have favored Didi reispetto to Uber: on this point you can also find literature to support.

Author Response

First of all, thank you for reviewing our paper. We also thank you for your helpful comments and feedback. They were a great help to revise and improve our paper. You can check our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors the paper  is very interesting to read and I believe that there is space for the paper to be improved.

In the line 50 you state few studies analyzed in detail .... but there are no references to studies.

Again in the line 63 there is previous research but again without references.

For the paper structure it would be good to have proper introduction into the paper and the literature review before you proceed with the research which is very interesting.

Also would like to see separated discussion and conclusion part

Maybe to check the way how the reference number are set in document in accordance to the paper template

Author Response

First of all, thank you for reviewing our paper. We also thank you for your helpful comments and feedback. They were a great help to revise and improve our paper. You can check our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you very much for the corrections you have prepared. In my opinion, the article has been significantly supplemented and is suitable for publication. Great job!

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

Thank you for updating the paper and accepting the proposal for improvements.