6 ms·

Brazil tried this tariff tactic, which resulted in some middling performance knockoffs. China also has some tariffs (hence the tariff bypass AMD recently did wi

Brazil tried this tariff tactic, which resulted in some middling performance knockoffs. China also has some tariffs (hence the tariff bypass AMD recently did with the JV that rebranded 3 year old Zen for the Chinese market). In terms of building up internal silicon design talent, tariffs have not been effective in other large countries. Allwinner and Mediatek are taking off the shelf designs from ARM, getting them fabbed, and writing basic BSPs for them. The only magic here is they generally do not care to have large firmware blobs, so their hardware isn't too terrible to mainline.

simula67 7y ago
I would assume that the tariffs would be a temporary measure. At the moment, there is no semiconductor industry in India to speak of and allowing foreign businesses in would mean that Indian companies would not have a fighting chance. If the industry takes off, I think the tariffs would be removed and the Indian companies would be forced to compete or sell themselves.
- benj111 7y ago
  Income tax was introduced 'temporarily' to the UK to fund the Napoleonic wars. These things have a habit of becoming permanent. If India's semiconductor industry does take off, do you think they'd want to risk sinking it (hows that for a mixed metaphor!) by exposing it to the rapacious global market?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The way out of that would probably be the usual mutual removal of tariffs in the course of a free trade agreement. If it does take off, they might encounter other countries' import barriers which they would want to mutually remove. That said, I'm skeptical for other reasons; it's a hard industry to build up and extremely competitive.
  - wrong_variable 7y ago
    I am not sure if you a Brit, you sure do sound like one. You are ignoring 400 years of trade history here. Britain was known for imposing unfair trade treaty on the rest of the world, ( so called 'unequal treaty' in the case of the China ). In the case of India, Tata was forbidden from selling steel in india, causing the indian steel industry to collapse. Same for textile, boats, ... shall I go on ? If you are so found of free trade, allow indians free visas to travel to the UK ? let's watch most brits try to compete with your 1.4 billion, 2 dollar a day indian labour ? So there is more nuance then "muh can't sell ARM chips !"
    - benj111 7y ago
      Read my comment again, it's got nothing to do with 400 years of trade history, it's about temporary measures having a habit of becoming permanent. Where did you get the idea I was so fond of free trade? (disclosure: I am in favour of free trade) I described international markets as rapacious. Plus free trade is about trade. Freedom of movement is about people. You can be in favour of free trade, and against freedom of movement, ask any Brexiteer. BTW not all Indians are on $2 a day, and most that would come to the UK would be on significantly more, and we have a minimum wage so they wouldn't be competing on $2 a day anyway. "Tata was forbidden from selling steel in india, causing the indian steel industry to collapse. Same for textile, boats " Any decent write ups on this? Not something I'm really aware of.
      - wrong_variable 7y ago
        > "Plus free trade is about trade. Freedom of movement is about people. You can be in favour of free trade, and against freedom of movement" Why ? Humans are a form of "good" so is capital and natural resources. You cant leave 1 out of 4 - the EU single market was created with this in mind. Some countries have excess capital, some have excess labour and some have excess natural resources. Its awfully convenient for you to leave out the ONE thing that a country like India has a surplus in and leave in the thing India is deficit in. > and we have a minimum wage so they wouldn't be competing on $2 a day anyway. Says who ? it depends on enforceability, ask any Indian or any Brit who lived through the Empire. Minimum wage is just a form of price control. > Any decent write ups on this? Not something I'm really aware of. Sure ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Empire If you turn back the clock 400 years ago - The Indian rupee used to be similar to the swizz franc. - people around the world used to hold on to the rupee since it didn't suffer from rampant inflation which even many european currencies did. - India was a major exporter of goods to SEAsia, Middle East, Europe and Africa, and imported very little. - All of it changed when the Brits arrived. Which comes back to my original point. You turn forward the clock 100 years and its quite likely every Brit would be singing a different tune, high tariff on Indian semiconductor, Indian medical devices, .... . They already sing a very different tune compared to just 15 years ago with Brexit today. Where are your open markets now ? Its awfully convenient to sit atop 400 years of plunder and loot and claim fair treatment and 'free market'.

simula67 7y ago

I would assume that the tariffs would be a temporary measure. At the moment, there is no semiconductor industry in India to speak of and allowing foreign businesses in would mean that Indian companies would not have a fighting chance. If the industry takes off, I think the tariffs would be removed and the Indian companies would be forced to compete or sell themselves.

benj111 7y ago
Income tax was introduced 'temporarily' to the UK to fund the Napoleonic wars. These things have a habit of becoming permanent. If India's semiconductor industry does take off, do you think they'd want to risk sinking it (hows that for a mixed metaphor!) by exposing it to the rapacious global market?
- pjc50 7y ago
  The way out of that would probably be the usual mutual removal of tariffs in the course of a free trade agreement. If it does take off, they might encounter other countries' import barriers which they would want to mutually remove. That said, I'm skeptical for other reasons; it's a hard industry to build up and extremely competitive.
- wrong_variable 7y ago
  I am not sure if you a Brit, you sure do sound like one. You are ignoring 400 years of trade history here. Britain was known for imposing unfair trade treaty on the rest of the world, ( so called 'unequal treaty' in the case of the China ). In the case of India, Tata was forbidden from selling steel in india, causing the indian steel industry to collapse. Same for textile, boats, ... shall I go on ? If you are so found of free trade, allow indians free visas to travel to the UK ? let's watch most brits try to compete with your 1.4 billion, 2 dollar a day indian labour ? So there is more nuance then "muh can't sell ARM chips !"
  - benj111 7y ago
    Read my comment again, it's got nothing to do with 400 years of trade history, it's about temporary measures having a habit of becoming permanent. Where did you get the idea I was so fond of free trade? (disclosure: I am in favour of free trade) I described international markets as rapacious. Plus free trade is about trade. Freedom of movement is about people. You can be in favour of free trade, and against freedom of movement, ask any Brexiteer. BTW not all Indians are on $2 a day, and most that would come to the UK would be on significantly more, and we have a minimum wage so they wouldn't be competing on $2 a day anyway. "Tata was forbidden from selling steel in india, causing the indian steel industry to collapse. Same for textile, boats " Any decent write ups on this? Not something I'm really aware of.
    - wrong_variable 7y ago
      > "Plus free trade is about trade. Freedom of movement is about people. You can be in favour of free trade, and against freedom of movement" Why ? Humans are a form of "good" so is capital and natural resources. You cant leave 1 out of 4 - the EU single market was created with this in mind. Some countries have excess capital, some have excess labour and some have excess natural resources. Its awfully convenient for you to leave out the ONE thing that a country like India has a surplus in and leave in the thing India is deficit in. > and we have a minimum wage so they wouldn't be competing on $2 a day anyway. Says who ? it depends on enforceability, ask any Indian or any Brit who lived through the Empire. Minimum wage is just a form of price control. > Any decent write ups on this? Not something I'm really aware of. Sure ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Empire If you turn back the clock 400 years ago - The Indian rupee used to be similar to the swizz franc. - people around the world used to hold on to the rupee since it didn't suffer from rampant inflation which even many european currencies did. - India was a major exporter of goods to SEAsia, Middle East, Europe and Africa, and imported very little. - All of it changed when the Brits arrived. Which comes back to my original point. You turn forward the clock 100 years and its quite likely every Brit would be singing a different tune, high tariff on Indian semiconductor, Indian medical devices, .... . They already sing a very different tune compared to just 15 years ago with Brexit today. Where are your open markets now ? Its awfully convenient to sit atop 400 years of plunder and loot and claim fair treatment and 'free market'.