8 ms·

The long term impact of this Huawei dispute will be China building out a complete vertical communications/computing stack from low level chips to operating syst

The long term impact of this Huawei dispute will be China building out a complete vertical communications/computing stack from low level chips to operating system to phone design. They won't get any market share in the U.S. but they'll dominate China (obv), India, Africa, and have some decent minority share in Europe. The ban is great for U.S. companies in the short term that are behind on 5G, but this will harm U.S. tech industry interests in the long term once China has that vertical stack up and running. I wish the U.S. government had used their power to push for some form of a mandatory and transparent security audit to ensure data privacy.

lugg 7y ago
Yea they should do that for apple and google too. Oh wait.
agumonkey 7y ago
I thought Europe was frowning hard on huawei too
- otaviokz 7y ago
  What news do you read? From here it seems quite divided.
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    some titles passing in reddit and other websites
- Barrin92 7y ago
  Not really hard, there's no united position. Huawei is a significant supplier of 4G infrastructure in Europe so ditching Huawei completely would be very costly, and at the moment it's mostly a matter of the individual nation states. I don't think there's a country that has issued a complete ban comparable to the US, and most European countries will probably purchase 5G tech from Huawei for parts of their networks.
  - metildaa 7y ago
    Huawei hasn't updated OpenSSL in their cellular basestation firmware, despite promises to do so in 2012 & 2018: https://hmgstrategy.com/resource-center/articles/2019/04/04/uk-flunks-huawei https://hmgstrategy.com/resource-center/articles/2019/04/04/... These really basic maintenance tasks aren't happening, leaving cell networks vulnerable to anyone who can be bothered to look up a CVE and run the provided demo exploit code. Hard to maintain a network you can't secure :c
    - 8note 7y ago
      I think there's a misplaced assumption here, that you should trust a network to keep your traffic safe. it's reasonable to think that regardless of their SSL implementation, you should assume that the network owner is going to try and spy on your traffic and sell it to the highest bidder
      - watwatinthewat 7y ago
        I don't see what part of that means the network operator shouldn't do their best to try to keep it safe.
      - metildaa 7y ago
        The cellular network being totally insecure is much worse than passive surveillance. Calls and texts can be rerouted and altered in transit, and mobile identities (eg: your SIM) can be impersonated on a whim.
    - fulafel 7y ago
      This is obviously not good, but is there evidence that they are broadly worse than the competition? I always thought telco internal networks were full of stuff like this (out of date and misconfigured crap everywhere, with heavy reliance on firewalls/vpns).
      - metildaa 7y ago
        VPNs and firewalls can't help when the cellular basestation is the issue. How would you prevent a malicious LTE client fron running these exploits? Telcom security is a mess, but the frontline gear is usually the saving grace of the network.
- metildaa 7y ago
  The telcos really want to have Huawei in the running, as their presence on RFPs causes a 30% price drop in competitors bids. Problem is, really basic maintenance tasks like updating OpenSSL aren't happening on Huawei's existing cellular basestations, leaving cell networks vulnerable to anyone who can be bothered to look up a CVE and run the provided demo exploit code. Hard to maintain a network you can't secure :c https://hmgstrategy.com/resource-center/articles/2019/04/04/uk-flunks-huawei https://hmgstrategy.com/resource-center/articles/2019/04/04/...
friedman23 7y ago
> The long term impact of this Huawei dispute will be China building out a complete vertical communications/computing stack from low level chips to operating system to phone design. Weren't they already doing this?
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  Everybody does that to an extent- they'll just have to find some way of getting their CPU's (including their designs) directly from within China. This may not be as hard as people think with the Joint-Ownership thing that the Chinese government requires. I'm sure that chipmakers would love the business if they can get into China. To address your comment- yes, they already do that, but because of loopholes, they probably won't have to develop a full stack.
  - metildaa 7y ago
    Huawei has no 7nm fab available that will turn a blind eye to pirate ARM chips (since their ARM license was revoked), and it is unlikely any new 7nm fabs will be built in China soon. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20077587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20077587
    - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
      Wouldn't one of those joint-ownership project things where one company within China owns 51% of the project work out? It would have to be not Huawei, but would that work?
      - metildaa 7y ago
        AMD did something very similar as a way to bypass tariffs in China (license their 1st gen 14nm Ryzen IP to a JV), but they've brought a ton of scrutiny to this loophole from both the USA & China, plus this trick won't work for Ryzen 2 since no 7nm fabs exist in China (and none are on the horizon).
mycall 7y ago
> The long term impact of this Huawei dispute will be China building out a complete vertical communications/computing stack from low level chips to operating system to phone design. Correction, this has been China's plan all along. This skizm is just speeding up the process.
- DevX101 7y ago
  Sure, but access to the U.S. market could have been used as an incentive to ensure data security globally.
  - scottLobster 7y ago
    Because that's worked so well for the last 20 years. If China would open their economy to US companies in the same way the US was open to China pre-trade-war, then things could work. As it stands China makes no secret about their desire to displace the US as the world's leading superpower, they've proven time and again they'll exploit any openings we give them toward that end. They don't want win-win scenarios, they want China-win-everyone-else-lose scenarios. It's long past time we stopped negotiating in good faith with bad actors.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      That's the gist of China's admission to the WTO: they would have in no way qualified in terms of transparency or free trade, but promises were made that things would change. They didn't. If Chinese products are so yellow-star-spangled awesome, then why not let their citizens choose freely between Chinese and foreign products? Free trade is a two way street.
      - pishpash 7y ago
        What are you even talking about? There are plenty of choices between domestic and foreign products in China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Jxci7d8UM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Jxci7d8UM On the other hand, good luck getting a Chinese smartphone in the US now. Better pony up your $1K+ for Tim Cook.
d3v0 7y ago
The US government doesn't care about privacy, they care about other nations spying on their citizens. It is evident from all the leaks of NSA/CIA that they spy more on their citizens than other nations'.
- ethbro 7y ago
  Technically, the US spies on the world... and shares info about their citizens with a number of other governments. On the other hand, the US isn't currently occupying, detaining, and requiring patriotic reeducation for an ethnic minority within its borders. I feel like an "It's already happening, and this is what you get" appraisal cuts less favorably towards China than the US.
  - freeflight 7y ago
    > On the other hand, the US isn't currently occupying, detaining, and requiring patriotic reeducation for an ethnic minority within its borders. Let's just ignore that the US is still running torture black-sites to this day and droning people all over the planet often based on nothing more than metadata and questionable ML algorithms [0] because that's what "the US spying on the world" is mostly about: State-sponsored assassinations and abductions. That's why the US doesn't exactly occupy a moral high-ground on these issues, the only reason many US Americans think they are is that they've bought into the "only protecting you from the next 9/11" narrative, which is exactly the same narrative the Chinese government is peddling to its own citizens to justify its own measures: "Fighting terrorists, keeping the country save". A cynic could now try to measure the bad vs the worse, but the reality remains that both are committing crimes against humanity on a regular basis and both justify them in exactly the same ways. [0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-nsas-skynet-program-may-be-killing-thousands-of-innocent-people/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-n...
    - ethbro 7y ago
      > Let's just ignore that the US is still running torture black-sites to this day and droning people... For context. Estimated number of people at CIA black sites: < 1000 Estimated total number of deaths from drone strikes, 2001-2014: 2,900 (numbers past 2014 are less clear) Number killed in Tiananmen Square in 1989: ~2600 Number of Uyghurs living in China: 11.3 M Number of Tibetans living in China: 6.3 M > A cynic could now try to measure the bad vs the worse, but the reality remains that both are committing crimes against humanity on a regular basis and both justify them in exactly the same ways. I would call someone who draws a distinction between bad and worse a realist.
gpm 7y ago
Hopefully the other long term impact will be western companies realizing they can't rely on being able to continue to do business with Chinese ones. The Chinese government will be perfectly happy to pull that plug when it suits them even if the American government hadn't been.
- pishpash 7y ago
  That's some excellent gaslighting, given the evidence at hand.
  - gpm 7y ago
    The evidence at hand that China runs an incredibly protectionist economy with long standing policies like requiring tech transfer and requiring chinese control to work there? The evidence at hand that China is interested in taking power on the international stage like the belts belt and road initiative? The evidence at hand that they don't have moral qualms like the concentration camps they run? This isn't gaslighting. To even approach gaslighting it would require me blaming China's tendencies to do the same sort of economic move for the US doing this. This is a realistic view of the world and a likely positive outcome for Americans and other westerners.
    - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
      The Chinese economy is not nearly as protectionist as you're making it out to be, and it has seen maybe opening up over the past few decades. Foreign companies have a huge presence in China. Apple phones and computers, European and American cars, American fast-food restaurants and Starbucks, and Western fashion brands are everywhere. Restrictions like joint-venture requirements have been successively removed from ever more industries (for example, they were removed in the automobile industry last year), and tariffs have been reduced to negligible levels for most products. China has censorship, which is why Google and Facebook aren't available in the country, but Apple goes along with the censorship and is not only available but also very popular. The argument that poorer countries need a certain level of protectionism in order to develop isn't new (it goes back at least to Alexander Hamilton), but as China has developed, it has reduced barriers to entry for foreign firms. There's a wide gulf between how China is discussed in the United States and the reality.
metildaa 7y ago
China already has an (uncompetitive) alternative stack, covering silicon to operating system. The problem is with building a competitive stack, Huawei can't get access to a 7nm fab in China, nor is their talent skilled in working with the limitations of said newer process, which kneecaps their ability to build chips competitive with Qualcomm and Apple. Huawei can build 7nm chips at TSMC, but due to their ARM license revocation and Qualcomm's inability to license them cellular patents under FRAND during this dispute, TSMC is unlikely to fab IP infringing chips. If TSMC were to fab these chips, their other 7nm clients (primarily Apple, followed by ARM licensees Qualcomm & AMD (which uses ARM TrustZone)) would all be in an uproar as ARM would likely prohibit the use of their designs at TSMC fabs. Wrt China building their own 7nm fab, it is very unlikely they will get it off the ground in the next few years. Only TSMC & Samsung have succeeded in this, Intel, Global Foundries (formerly AMD) and many others have spent tens of billions and half a decade trying to build better than 14nm processes to no avail.
- devereaux 7y ago
  > VThe problem is with building a competitive stack, Huawei can't get access to a 7nm fab in China yet > Huawei can build 7nm chips at TSMC, but due to their ARM l ARM -> RISC, as ARM is not the only game in town. For example, at the moment I am having a lot of fun with a Unielec u7621 board (2 mini PCIe, mSata and USB3 with hardware accelerated NAT to handle 1Gbps) that costed me about $45 : https://openwrt.org/toh/unielec/u7621-06 https://openwrt.org/toh/unielec/u7621-06 I would love to see MIPS64 SOCs with a few GBs of RAM to replace my raspberries
  - metildaa 7y ago
    This is a pretty weak rebuttal, the MT7621 based board you cite has two MIPS 24k CPUs, straight out of 2005: https://wikidevi.com/wiki/MIPS_24K https://wikidevi.com/wiki/MIPS_24K All of the MT7621"s speed is from ASICs that accelerate NAT & WPA2, without that silicon external to the CPU, any kind of crypto would slowly chug along. More competitive offerings like the OrangePi PC Plus ($19) and FriendlyARM boards based on Allwinner chips offer much nore performance for the dollar, but these are literally foriegn IP blocks Allwinner licensed, glued together and sent off to a 45n or 28nm fab to have manufactured. Most of the work Allwinner did for these chips was on a trashcan ready, buggy board support package.
krona 7y ago
> I wish the U.S. government had used their power to push for some form of a mandatory and transparent security audit to ensure data privacy. That's exactly what the UK did. It's called the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC). Here's the latest (public) annual report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/790270/HCSEC_OversightBoardReport-2019.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- devoply 7y ago
  They should use this center for technology transfer... heh.
njepa 7y ago
They are already doing that, this is presumably part of what the entire conflict is about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025
gok 7y ago
Complete vertical integration is literally what the CCP's goal has been since 2015 (Google "made in China 2025"), long before any bans.
sremani 7y ago
As far as I know India has restrictions on Huawei network gear. US - China war is hypothetical, but Indo-China was is more closer to reality and each year both armies trading stones and punches. The stronger China becomes, the closer India will get to US and Japan. It's a geo-political compulsion. >>U.S. government had used their power to push for some form of a mandatory and transparent security audit to ensure data privacy. Not in this iteration of world where spycraft is part and parcel of nation-state functions.
actuator 7y ago
China, sure. India, I am not so sure. All the popular social media platforms(except TikTok) in India are US based. English being the gateway language for most of the influential users, makes it trivial for platforms made in US to capture market there. Also, US has much more cultural exports to the country than China. There is no advantage a Chinese clone startup would have over a US one in India unless the product is vastly superior; this is why even Chinese firms are investing in Indian startups rather than entering into the market directly. Hardware, they might dominate but for that to happen they need to have a solid alternative to the US based services.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  Also in regards to India, China is a much more geo-strategic rival than the US. I do and China have actually had a shooting war. They also have territorial disputes. I suspect India trusts China less than it trusts the US.
loceng 7y ago
Until the world of democracies decide to subsidize the costs to help counter the pitfalls of censorship.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
That would be pretty great for humanity, though.

lugg 7y ago

Yea they should do that for apple and google too. Oh wait.

agumonkey 7y ago

I thought Europe was frowning hard on huawei too

otaviokz 7y ago
What news do you read? From here it seems quite divided.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  some titles passing in reddit and other websites
Barrin92 7y ago
Not really hard, there's no united position. Huawei is a significant supplier of 4G infrastructure in Europe so ditching Huawei completely would be very costly, and at the moment it's mostly a matter of the individual nation states. I don't think there's a country that has issued a complete ban comparable to the US, and most European countries will probably purchase 5G tech from Huawei for parts of their networks.
- metildaa 7y ago
  Huawei hasn't updated OpenSSL in their cellular basestation firmware, despite promises to do so in 2012 & 2018: https://hmgstrategy.com/resource-center/articles/2019/04/04/uk-flunks-huawei https://hmgstrategy.com/resource-center/articles/2019/04/04/... These really basic maintenance tasks aren't happening, leaving cell networks vulnerable to anyone who can be bothered to look up a CVE and run the provided demo exploit code. Hard to maintain a network you can't secure :c
  - 8note 7y ago
    I think there's a misplaced assumption here, that you should trust a network to keep your traffic safe. it's reasonable to think that regardless of their SSL implementation, you should assume that the network owner is going to try and spy on your traffic and sell it to the highest bidder
    - watwatinthewat 7y ago
      I don't see what part of that means the network operator shouldn't do their best to try to keep it safe.
    - metildaa 7y ago
      The cellular network being totally insecure is much worse than passive surveillance. Calls and texts can be rerouted and altered in transit, and mobile identities (eg: your SIM) can be impersonated on a whim.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    This is obviously not good, but is there evidence that they are broadly worse than the competition? I always thought telco internal networks were full of stuff like this (out of date and misconfigured crap everywhere, with heavy reliance on firewalls/vpns).
    - metildaa 7y ago
      VPNs and firewalls can't help when the cellular basestation is the issue. How would you prevent a malicious LTE client fron running these exploits? Telcom security is a mess, but the frontline gear is usually the saving grace of the network.
metildaa 7y ago
The telcos really want to have Huawei in the running, as their presence on RFPs causes a 30% price drop in competitors bids. Problem is, really basic maintenance tasks like updating OpenSSL aren't happening on Huawei's existing cellular basestations, leaving cell networks vulnerable to anyone who can be bothered to look up a CVE and run the provided demo exploit code. Hard to maintain a network you can't secure :c https://hmgstrategy.com/resource-center/articles/2019/04/04/uk-flunks-huawei https://hmgstrategy.com/resource-center/articles/2019/04/04/...

friedman23 7y ago

> The long term impact of this Huawei dispute will be China building out a complete vertical communications/computing stack from low level chips to operating system to phone design. Weren't they already doing this?

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
Everybody does that to an extent- they'll just have to find some way of getting their CPU's (including their designs) directly from within China. This may not be as hard as people think with the Joint-Ownership thing that the Chinese government requires. I'm sure that chipmakers would love the business if they can get into China. To address your comment- yes, they already do that, but because of loopholes, they probably won't have to develop a full stack.
- metildaa 7y ago
  Huawei has no 7nm fab available that will turn a blind eye to pirate ARM chips (since their ARM license was revoked), and it is unlikely any new 7nm fabs will be built in China soon. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20077587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20077587
  - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
    Wouldn't one of those joint-ownership project things where one company within China owns 51% of the project work out? It would have to be not Huawei, but would that work?
    - metildaa 7y ago
      AMD did something very similar as a way to bypass tariffs in China (license their 1st gen 14nm Ryzen IP to a JV), but they've brought a ton of scrutiny to this loophole from both the USA & China, plus this trick won't work for Ryzen 2 since no 7nm fabs exist in China (and none are on the horizon).

mycall 7y ago

DevX101 7y ago
Sure, but access to the U.S. market could have been used as an incentive to ensure data security globally.
- scottLobster 7y ago
  Because that's worked so well for the last 20 years. If China would open their economy to US companies in the same way the US was open to China pre-trade-war, then things could work. As it stands China makes no secret about their desire to displace the US as the world's leading superpower, they've proven time and again they'll exploit any openings we give them toward that end. They don't want win-win scenarios, they want China-win-everyone-else-lose scenarios. It's long past time we stopped negotiating in good faith with bad actors.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    That's the gist of China's admission to the WTO: they would have in no way qualified in terms of transparency or free trade, but promises were made that things would change. They didn't. If Chinese products are so yellow-star-spangled awesome, then why not let their citizens choose freely between Chinese and foreign products? Free trade is a two way street.
    - pishpash 7y ago
      What are you even talking about? There are plenty of choices between domestic and foreign products in China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Jxci7d8UM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Jxci7d8UM On the other hand, good luck getting a Chinese smartphone in the US now. Better pony up your $1K+ for Tim Cook.

d3v0 7y ago

The US government doesn't care about privacy, they care about other nations spying on their citizens. It is evident from all the leaks of NSA/CIA that they spy more on their citizens than other nations'.

ethbro 7y ago
Technically, the US spies on the world... and shares info about their citizens with a number of other governments. On the other hand, the US isn't currently occupying, detaining, and requiring patriotic reeducation for an ethnic minority within its borders. I feel like an "It's already happening, and this is what you get" appraisal cuts less favorably towards China than the US.
- freeflight 7y ago
  > On the other hand, the US isn't currently occupying, detaining, and requiring patriotic reeducation for an ethnic minority within its borders. Let's just ignore that the US is still running torture black-sites to this day and droning people all over the planet often based on nothing more than metadata and questionable ML algorithms [0] because that's what "the US spying on the world" is mostly about: State-sponsored assassinations and abductions. That's why the US doesn't exactly occupy a moral high-ground on these issues, the only reason many US Americans think they are is that they've bought into the "only protecting you from the next 9/11" narrative, which is exactly the same narrative the Chinese government is peddling to its own citizens to justify its own measures: "Fighting terrorists, keeping the country save". A cynic could now try to measure the bad vs the worse, but the reality remains that both are committing crimes against humanity on a regular basis and both justify them in exactly the same ways. [0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-nsas-skynet-program-may-be-killing-thousands-of-innocent-people/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-n...
  - ethbro 7y ago
    > Let's just ignore that the US is still running torture black-sites to this day and droning people... For context. Estimated number of people at CIA black sites: < 1000 Estimated total number of deaths from drone strikes, 2001-2014: 2,900 (numbers past 2014 are less clear) Number killed in Tiananmen Square in 1989: ~2600 Number of Uyghurs living in China: 11.3 M Number of Tibetans living in China: 6.3 M > A cynic could now try to measure the bad vs the worse, but the reality remains that both are committing crimes against humanity on a regular basis and both justify them in exactly the same ways. I would call someone who draws a distinction between bad and worse a realist.

gpm 7y ago

Hopefully the other long term impact will be western companies realizing they can't rely on being able to continue to do business with Chinese ones. The Chinese government will be perfectly happy to pull that plug when it suits them even if the American government hadn't been.

pishpash 7y ago
That's some excellent gaslighting, given the evidence at hand.
- gpm 7y ago
  The evidence at hand that China runs an incredibly protectionist economy with long standing policies like requiring tech transfer and requiring chinese control to work there? The evidence at hand that China is interested in taking power on the international stage like the belts belt and road initiative? The evidence at hand that they don't have moral qualms like the concentration camps they run? This isn't gaslighting. To even approach gaslighting it would require me blaming China's tendencies to do the same sort of economic move for the US doing this. This is a realistic view of the world and a likely positive outcome for Americans and other westerners.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    The Chinese economy is not nearly as protectionist as you're making it out to be, and it has seen maybe opening up over the past few decades. Foreign companies have a huge presence in China. Apple phones and computers, European and American cars, American fast-food restaurants and Starbucks, and Western fashion brands are everywhere. Restrictions like joint-venture requirements have been successively removed from ever more industries (for example, they were removed in the automobile industry last year), and tariffs have been reduced to negligible levels for most products. China has censorship, which is why Google and Facebook aren't available in the country, but Apple goes along with the censorship and is not only available but also very popular. The argument that poorer countries need a certain level of protectionism in order to develop isn't new (it goes back at least to Alexander Hamilton), but as China has developed, it has reduced barriers to entry for foreign firms. There's a wide gulf between how China is discussed in the United States and the reality.

metildaa 7y ago

China already has an (uncompetitive) alternative stack, covering silicon to operating system. The problem is with building a competitive stack, Huawei can't get access to a 7nm fab in China, nor is their talent skilled in working with the limitations of said newer process, which kneecaps their ability to build chips competitive with Qualcomm and Apple. Huawei can build 7nm chips at TSMC, but due to their ARM license revocation and Qualcomm's inability to license them cellular patents under FRAND during this dispute, TSMC is unlikely to fab IP infringing chips. If TSMC were to fab these chips, their other 7nm clients (primarily Apple, followed by ARM licensees Qualcomm & AMD (which uses ARM TrustZone)) would all be in an uproar as ARM would likely prohibit the use of their designs at TSMC fabs. Wrt China building their own 7nm fab, it is very unlikely they will get it off the ground in the next few years. Only TSMC & Samsung have succeeded in this, Intel, Global Foundries (formerly AMD) and many others have spent tens of billions and half a decade trying to build better than 14nm processes to no avail.

devereaux 7y ago
> VThe problem is with building a competitive stack, Huawei can't get access to a 7nm fab in China yet > Huawei can build 7nm chips at TSMC, but due to their ARM l ARM -> RISC, as ARM is not the only game in town. For example, at the moment I am having a lot of fun with a Unielec u7621 board (2 mini PCIe, mSata and USB3 with hardware accelerated NAT to handle 1Gbps) that costed me about $45 : https://openwrt.org/toh/unielec/u7621-06 https://openwrt.org/toh/unielec/u7621-06 I would love to see MIPS64 SOCs with a few GBs of RAM to replace my raspberries
- metildaa 7y ago
  This is a pretty weak rebuttal, the MT7621 based board you cite has two MIPS 24k CPUs, straight out of 2005: https://wikidevi.com/wiki/MIPS_24K https://wikidevi.com/wiki/MIPS_24K All of the MT7621"s speed is from ASICs that accelerate NAT & WPA2, without that silicon external to the CPU, any kind of crypto would slowly chug along. More competitive offerings like the OrangePi PC Plus ($19) and FriendlyARM boards based on Allwinner chips offer much nore performance for the dollar, but these are literally foriegn IP blocks Allwinner licensed, glued together and sent off to a 45n or 28nm fab to have manufactured. Most of the work Allwinner did for these chips was on a trashcan ready, buggy board support package.

krona 7y ago

> I wish the U.S. government had used their power to push for some form of a mandatory and transparent security audit to ensure data privacy. That's exactly what the UK did. It's called the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC). Here's the latest (public) annual report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/790270/HCSEC_OversightBoardReport-2019.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

devoply 7y ago
They should use this center for technology transfer... heh.

njepa 7y ago

They are already doing that, this is presumably part of what the entire conflict is about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025

gok 7y ago

Complete vertical integration is literally what the CCP's goal has been since 2015 (Google "made in China 2025"), long before any bans.

sremani 7y ago

As far as I know India has restrictions on Huawei network gear. US - China war is hypothetical, but Indo-China was is more closer to reality and each year both armies trading stones and punches. The stronger China becomes, the closer India will get to US and Japan. It's a geo-political compulsion. >>U.S. government had used their power to push for some form of a mandatory and transparent security audit to ensure data privacy. Not in this iteration of world where spycraft is part and parcel of nation-state functions.

actuator 7y ago

China, sure. India, I am not so sure. All the popular social media platforms(except TikTok) in India are US based. English being the gateway language for most of the influential users, makes it trivial for platforms made in US to capture market there. Also, US has much more cultural exports to the country than China. There is no advantage a Chinese clone startup would have over a US one in India unless the product is vastly superior; this is why even Chinese firms are investing in Indian startups rather than entering into the market directly. Hardware, they might dominate but for that to happen they need to have a solid alternative to the US based services.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
Also in regards to India, China is a much more geo-strategic rival than the US. I do and China have actually had a shooting war. They also have territorial disputes. I suspect India trusts China less than it trusts the US.

loceng 7y ago

Until the world of democracies decide to subsidize the costs to help counter the pitfalls of censorship.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

That would be pretty great for humanity, though.