4 ms·
Well, to be fair to the founder, the US has already rolled back the restrictions it placed on Huawei, giving it a 90 day reprieve instead of imposing it immedia
by addicted 7y ago
Well, to be fair to the founder, the US has already rolled back the restrictions it placed on Huawei, giving it a 90 day reprieve instead of imposing it immediately as they did earlier.
So clearly Huawei actually does have some leverage here that the US did not originally factor in.
That being said, I don’t see how it benefits Huawei for their founder to take this combative stance unless they think that the US is doing this solely to kneecap Huawei and there is no chance they will allow them to compete even if the allegations are proven untrue.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoI'm not sure I would attribute that to Huawei leverage so much as US Telecoms depending on them in the short term and needing time to switch. But yeah.
- robbiemitchell 7y agoI'd call that leverage
- xfs 7y ago> I don’t see how it benefits Huawei for their founder to take this combative stance unless they think that the US is doing this solely to kneecap Huawei and there is no chance they will allow them to compete even if the allegations are proven untrue. That's a strange position. Please help me understand. The allegations are about national security threats. How does one prove his innocence in general? Huawei did what they can with the British by showing the source code and build processes, which was obviously far from enough. The US has gone out of its way to pressure its allies to ban Huawei, following a long and hard media campaign, ending with a deadly blow on Huaweis supply chain. The writing is on the wall. If the US is not doing this to cripple Huawei then what for?
- majia 7y agoHuawei is not taking a combative stance. It’s just Guardian took a few out of context quotes to make him looks like combative.