4 ms·

Is Phytium owned by the Chinese government? Otherwise, why call it China's chip? It's like saying America's Xeon.

by biot 10y ago

rch 10y ago
I've been thinking about this lately: what's the difference between how China supports companies, and the U.S. giving Intel a big DOE contract?
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Chinese companies often copy and improve on each others' work. U.S. companies often patent and/or copyright the work then sue many with profitable remixes. The U.S. inventions can be like throwing money into a big hole if wrong company ends up with the patent or copyright. I noticed this distinction studying Shenzhen vs US tech sector.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Honestly not a lot. People who complain about the Chinese government helping Chinese companies need to recognize that the US has been doing similar things for decades. China does seem to give more support to its companies than the US does, but that's a difference of degree, not of kind. In fact, the development of Silicon Valley as a tech hub in the first place was heavily dependent on the military-industrial complex -- Fairchild had considerable military contracts, for example, and the companies that followed have had such contracts as well. This is a situation where free trade and national security can be in conflict -- it would simply be irresponsible for the US or China to trust non-domestic companies with military projects, satellites, etc. But most of the companies that work on those projects also compete in the consumer market, where government subsidies are considered trade barriers.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "Honestly not a lot." and "China does seem to give more support to its companies than the US does, but that's a difference of degree, not of kind." I'm sorry but this is not true. Chinese companies are often a direct part of national strategy and are created by, led by, supported by and defended by the state. The collusion between many Chinese companies often goes far, far beyond 'government contracts'. It's rational for any government to prefer local companies for strategic purchases, particularly military etc.. Nobody is going to bat an eye if a state related carrier choses to buy planes from their national aerospace entity. But China will force companies from other countries to give up their IP - then hand it over to state-owned or related companies, then 'hold up' the foreign company in approval processes and other forms of tariff barriers - while the 'state owned' company gets a head start in the local market. And obviously having direct government ownership in many of these companies means a material intervention far beyond what the US does. The US does not own any piece of Apple or Intel, and makes investments in entities like GM only very reluctantly under negative conditions to keep them alive - not to promote a national strategy. Finally - because of the heavy state owned banking system and the total political control over monetary policy - issues like lending and financing are also heavily politicized, which is another form of direct state intervention. The means by which the US or UK intervene are on average completely different from how it's often done in China.
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      I should add that I also speak from direct experience on this issue - working for a F100 firm, we were held up by the Chinese government for years from selling into their market until a state-related entity launched a carbon-copy competitive product.
    - tomcam 10y ago
      This all factually correct. Cannot understand reason for downvotes. Also have done business in China for 15 years.
      - jomamaxx 10y ago
        Of course it is. It's pretty well established and public knowledge, there's not controversy in that statement. But it goes against an emotional kind of a 'morally relativistic' view of other cultures one must have to be politically correct. A statement that is 'against China', even if factual, will be perceived as some kind of 'bigotry' or 'prejudice' or 'racist sentiment' by those with a social/utopian view of the world. I find young people are especially like this.
        twblalock 10y ago
        You wrote that my comment was untrue, but you did not contradict it. You enumerated differences of degree, not of kind. I suspect that's why you got downvoted. But hey, feel free to have a persecution complex about this whole thing, and blame political correctness and moral relativism.
        jomamaxx 10y ago
        "You enumerated differences in degree" Totally false. I iterated several ways in which the Chinese government intervenes that the US and other countries do not. In case you had trouble reading: 1) The Chinese government creates many companies companies for strategic purposes. The US does not. Some Euro companies do, in limited situations - mostly around energy, military and aviation. 2) The Chinese government takes a direct financial interest in many industries and companies. The US does not, again, unless it's a reluctant, temporary bailout which is a totally different thing. Even when they do 'bail out' - they don't sit on the board, or give orders - it's just financial. 3) The Chinese government owns the banking system - and government officials require state banks to make investments in specific companies. The US does not do this. 4) The Chinese government has political control over their 'Central Bank' and has currency and capital controls. They use these measures for a lot of things - but one is to create financing for the state banks to make their industrial investments. The US does not do this. 5) The Chinese government requires foreign entities to give up Intellectual Property in order to sell into their market - even for consumer products etc. The US does not do this. 6) The Chinese government uses IP gained from this practice - and from industrial espionage to create state-owned competitors. The US does not do this. (There's little for the US to steal, admittedly, they will do this for military programs - but not commercial ventures). You must had difficulty reading? I totally contradicted your comment. The means by which China intervenes is fundamentally different than the means by which the US and Western countries intervene. Everybody knows this. It's not contentious, it's not a secret, it's not a conspiracy theory. You're arguing against everyone in business. I'll gather that most Hackernews readers have basically no exposure to these things - that's ok - it's 'hackernews' not 'international business news'.
- shrewduser 10y ago
  chinese countries get the support of government industrial espionage, protection from competition even if that violates trade rules, the list is endless.
throwaway000002 10y ago
May I introduce to you the concept of metonymy. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
Volt 10y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if non-Americans called it that.
- isjustajokebro 10y ago
  I don't (I'm from europe) and I don't know anybody that does.
dghughes 10y ago
Doesn't the Chinese government own everything in China? I know they're supposedly not communist anymore but I mean really come on a one party system and that party can only legally be the Communist Party? If it quacks like a duck!
L_Rahman 10y ago
It actually is. Phytium is a subsidiary of China Electronics Corporation which itself is a state-owned enterprise.

Is Phytium owned by the Chinese government? Otherwise, why call it China's chip? It's like saying America's Xeon.

by biot 10y ago

Is Phytium owned by the Chinese government? Otherwise, why call it China's chip? It's like saying America's Xeon.

rch 10y ago

I've been thinking about this lately: what's the difference between how China supports companies, and the U.S. giving Intel a big DOE contract?

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Chinese companies often copy and improve on each others' work. U.S. companies often patent and/or copyright the work then sue many with profitable remixes. The U.S. inventions can be like throwing money into a big hole if wrong company ends up with the patent or copyright. I noticed this distinction studying Shenzhen vs US tech sector.
twblalock 10y ago
Honestly not a lot. People who complain about the Chinese government helping Chinese companies need to recognize that the US has been doing similar things for decades. China does seem to give more support to its companies than the US does, but that's a difference of degree, not of kind. In fact, the development of Silicon Valley as a tech hub in the first place was heavily dependent on the military-industrial complex -- Fairchild had considerable military contracts, for example, and the companies that followed have had such contracts as well. This is a situation where free trade and national security can be in conflict -- it would simply be irresponsible for the US or China to trust non-domestic companies with military projects, satellites, etc. But most of the companies that work on those projects also compete in the consumer market, where government subsidies are considered trade barriers.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "Honestly not a lot." and "China does seem to give more support to its companies than the US does, but that's a difference of degree, not of kind." I'm sorry but this is not true. Chinese companies are often a direct part of national strategy and are created by, led by, supported by and defended by the state. The collusion between many Chinese companies often goes far, far beyond 'government contracts'. It's rational for any government to prefer local companies for strategic purchases, particularly military etc.. Nobody is going to bat an eye if a state related carrier choses to buy planes from their national aerospace entity. But China will force companies from other countries to give up their IP - then hand it over to state-owned or related companies, then 'hold up' the foreign company in approval processes and other forms of tariff barriers - while the 'state owned' company gets a head start in the local market. And obviously having direct government ownership in many of these companies means a material intervention far beyond what the US does. The US does not own any piece of Apple or Intel, and makes investments in entities like GM only very reluctantly under negative conditions to keep them alive - not to promote a national strategy. Finally - because of the heavy state owned banking system and the total political control over monetary policy - issues like lending and financing are also heavily politicized, which is another form of direct state intervention. The means by which the US or UK intervene are on average completely different from how it's often done in China.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    I should add that I also speak from direct experience on this issue - working for a F100 firm, we were held up by the Chinese government for years from selling into their market until a state-related entity launched a carbon-copy competitive product.
  - tomcam 10y ago
    This all factually correct. Cannot understand reason for downvotes. Also have done business in China for 15 years.
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      Of course it is. It's pretty well established and public knowledge, there's not controversy in that statement. But it goes against an emotional kind of a 'morally relativistic' view of other cultures one must have to be politically correct. A statement that is 'against China', even if factual, will be perceived as some kind of 'bigotry' or 'prejudice' or 'racist sentiment' by those with a social/utopian view of the world. I find young people are especially like this.
      - twblalock 10y ago
        You wrote that my comment was untrue, but you did not contradict it. You enumerated differences of degree, not of kind. I suspect that's why you got downvoted. But hey, feel free to have a persecution complex about this whole thing, and blame political correctness and moral relativism.
      - jomamaxx 10y ago
        "You enumerated differences in degree" Totally false. I iterated several ways in which the Chinese government intervenes that the US and other countries do not. In case you had trouble reading: 1) The Chinese government creates many companies companies for strategic purposes. The US does not. Some Euro companies do, in limited situations - mostly around energy, military and aviation. 2) The Chinese government takes a direct financial interest in many industries and companies. The US does not, again, unless it's a reluctant, temporary bailout which is a totally different thing. Even when they do 'bail out' - they don't sit on the board, or give orders - it's just financial. 3) The Chinese government owns the banking system - and government officials require state banks to make investments in specific companies. The US does not do this. 4) The Chinese government has political control over their 'Central Bank' and has currency and capital controls. They use these measures for a lot of things - but one is to create financing for the state banks to make their industrial investments. The US does not do this. 5) The Chinese government requires foreign entities to give up Intellectual Property in order to sell into their market - even for consumer products etc. The US does not do this. 6) The Chinese government uses IP gained from this practice - and from industrial espionage to create state-owned competitors. The US does not do this. (There's little for the US to steal, admittedly, they will do this for military programs - but not commercial ventures). You must had difficulty reading? I totally contradicted your comment. The means by which China intervenes is fundamentally different than the means by which the US and Western countries intervene. Everybody knows this. It's not contentious, it's not a secret, it's not a conspiracy theory. You're arguing against everyone in business. I'll gather that most Hackernews readers have basically no exposure to these things - that's ok - it's 'hackernews' not 'international business news'.
shrewduser 10y ago
chinese countries get the support of government industrial espionage, protection from competition even if that violates trade rules, the list is endless.

throwaway000002 10y ago

May I introduce to you the concept of metonymy. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

Volt 10y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if non-Americans called it that.

isjustajokebro 10y ago
I don't (I'm from europe) and I don't know anybody that does.

dghughes 10y ago

Doesn't the Chinese government own everything in China? I know they're supposedly not communist anymore but I mean really come on a one party system and that party can only legally be the Communist Party? If it quacks like a duck!

L_Rahman 10y ago

It actually is. Phytium is a subsidiary of China Electronics Corporation which itself is a state-owned enterprise.