12 ms·
America is determined to sink Huawei
- asadhaider 6y agoUnpaywalled archive: https://archive.is/qolrV https://archive.is/qolrV
- iso947 6y agoCertificate error
- sophieRu 6y agoThe issue with Huawei is that they are actually 4 years ahead in terms of infrastructure technology compared to any american company.
- luckydata 6y agoHow come? Everything they’ve got they just stole from other entities. Unless there’s a European company 4 year ahead this is just impossible. Plus I reject this notion off hand as huawei ships famously half baked and buggy software with their equipment.
- leto_ii 6y ago> Everything they’ve got they just stole from other entities. Is this true, though?
- pb7 6y agoHard to tell what’s what when you shamelessly steal for decades with no accountability.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y agoIf it's asserted often and loudly enough, it becomes true - at least in the minds of most people. Huawei spends over 15 billion USD/year on R&D, which puts it in the same league as Apple and Google. Only a few companies in the world spend more on R&D. That's the real reason why Huawei is viewed as a threat. The US has been happy for China to produce cheap knick-knacks. Now that China develops and produces its own cutting-edge technology, it is perceived as a threat.
- luckydata 6y agoNo matter how much budget you have, there's always something you can't do. It's pretty convenient to throw a bunch of resources at a project knowing "the other half" of the IP is gonna show up for free on a thumb drive someone drops by after leaving their job at Cisco (or whatever other company they decide to raid that month) in a hurry. Your R&D budget becomes effectively your 15B (I don't believe that number btw) plus whatever Cisco, Broadcom etc.. spend. How convenient.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y agoAny evidence for your assertion that Huawei is stealing Cisco and Broadcom's R&D?
- luckydata 6y agoPlenty. Are you asking me to google it for you?
- DiogenesKynikos 6y agoFeel free to do so.
- luckydata 6y agohard pass, do your own research.
- Nokinside 6y agoAmerican companies are not behind, they don't exist. US companies can't compete in the market where they don't exist. Qualcomm sells components, not mobile networks. There are only four big companies left for for 4G/LTE/5G mobile infrastructure: COMPANY MARKET SHARE Huawei 28% Ericsson 27% Nokia 23% ZTE 13% Samsung 3%
- rumanator 6y agoMarket share is not very telling in case of Huawei, as they're notorious for dumping expensed by subsidies awarded by the Chinese regime. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Huawei If the Chinese regime throws cash at a company to buy themselves into a dominant position to play their role in a geopolitical game, market share means nothing.
- pb7 6y agoWhat is this claim based from? They may be 4 years ahead in surveillance technology, I’ll give you that.
- amelius 6y agoThe problem with China is that they support their companies in ways that are incompatible with western laws. In the long run it is simply not possible for US companies to compete with Chinese companies, as they would be essentially competing with the Chinese nation.
- onemoresoop 6y agoIf that’s the issue why not form American nation like companies or something of the sorts? Or Americano-European conglomerates? Competition could be a good thing at the end of the day..
- ccmcarey 6y ago> It announced new rules that target Huawei’s in-house microchips, which power many of the firm’s products. The rules are aimed at the factories that take such designs and turn them into working silicon, such as those owned by TSMC in Taiwan and SMIC in China. Out of curiosity, what's the legal basis for this? Is it just a threat, and if companines like TSMC don't follow it, they'll also be blacklisted from the US market?
- nradov 6y agoThe legal basis is that companies which violate US sanctions are not allowed to operate in the US, or transact business using financial services companies which operate in the US. That applies even if no part of the transaction passes through US territory.
- KCUOJJQJ 6y agoIt's unfair that non-US companies must annoy Huawei. Non-US companies usually don't benefit from this. It's like forcing foreigners to be part of your army.
- threatofrain 6y agoThose companies, like every company seeking to do business around the world, will make its judgment call on whether it's worth it to satisfy any party's demands.
- enitihas 6y agoCan the US afford to blacklist TSMC from anything?
- KCUOJJQJ 6y agoFrom https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/technology/trump-tsmc-us-chip-facility.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/technology/trump-tsmc-us-... Mark Liu, T.S.M.C.’s chairman, told The New York Times in October that T.S.M.C. had been negotiating with the Commerce Department about a possible U.S. plant, but said it would require substantial government subsidies. How much, if any, public money might be associated with the company’s decision was unclear. And from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48917705 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48917705 The US State Department has approved a potential arms sale to Taiwan, estimated to be worth $2.2bn (£1.76bn), the Pentagon said. Maybe TSMC thought it would be really good if Tawain were protected better thanks to these weapons, and TSMC would also like these subsidies.
- rafaelreinert 6y agoU.S.A, not America, here in Brazil we haven’t any issue with Huawei
- squires 6y agoUSA is commonly known as America, and the fact that some variant of this comment always surfaces when it's referred to as such won't change that.
- vinay427 6y agoThis again? I think your point is appropriate when speaking Spanish, Portuguese (EDIT: not Portuguese), etc. However, in common English (no, not just in the US) the word "America" more often refers to the USA. Languages don't use the same or derivative words for many other countries as well.
- BitwiseFool 6y agoThat's going to be awfully hard to do since we decided it was better to make things overseas because it's cheaper and we didn't have to pay so many in-house engineers.
- BobbyJo 6y agoWe make the things that make the things though, so if we just don't ship the meta-machines over seas, we'll be fine.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- eganist 6y agoThis may be a bit of pro-USA or pro-Western favoritism on my part, but if a company is getting away with illicitly gaining access to trade secrets in order to build a competitive advantage while shielded by its home country (not the best example, but t-mobile v. huawei - I imagine plenty of others are classified), is it in-scope for opposing nations to destabilize the company responsible for doing so?
- the-dude 6y agoHow about a company leveraging its monopoly on operating systems to illicitly gain an advantage in other markets, say ... webbrowsers? Should we nuke them?
- eganist 6y agoWell, "nuke" might be the wrong word, but doesn't it depend on the end goal? The EU seems to be taking the "extract wealth" approach, and just as with destabilization, is there anything wrong with that? I'm not answering the question; I'm asking it. I guess my overarching question in the end is whether or not it should be left up to the free market to resolve an issue that's spawned from an entity operating "outside" of it, either literally (e.g. in China) or figuratively (e.g. antitrust violations).
- the-dude 6y agoFair enough. Bomb 'em.
- ensignavenger 6y agoIf you are referring to Microsoft, then yes, the US and Europe both prosecuted them and placed restrictions on them.
- FrankBooth 6y agoMicrosoft? It’s not the nineties. Try Google.
- duxup 6y agohttps://outline.com/cxJ47a https://outline.com/cxJ47a Is there a link to what this new rule, is exactly? The article states it in one line but doesn't reference it beyond that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- elliekelly 6y agoI think it’s this rule.[1] The Commerce Department’s press release[2] summarizes the new rule/licensing requirements. [1]https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/19/2020-10856/export-administration-regulations-amendments-to-general-prohibition-three-foreign-produced-direct https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/19/2020-10... [2]https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/05/commerce-addresses-huaweis-efforts-undermine-entity-list-restricts https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/05/commerc...
- sand_castles 6y agoI know many ppl are going to defend "America" here. But remember who you are defending. Great power rivalry is bad for corporate profit and amazing for wage laborer, which most of HN is. If you are an worker in North America, this type of headline should be a moment of celebration.
- theredbox 6y agoWe are defending western civilization. I would rather China to collapse than to see it replace the US of A. China is actively trying to erase any minorities by replacing them with han chinese. It is an evil, vile country and it needs to fundamentally change before we accept its ambitions.
- leto_ii 6y ago> We are defending western civilization. I've rarely seen this kind of hiperbole on hn. Who is we? What does it mean to defend? What exactly is the connection to Western civilization here? > I would rather China to collapse than to see it replace the US of A. Is this in any way pertinent to the topic being discussed? Is there a risk that China would collapse if Huawei gets into business trouble? Is there any risk that China would "replace" the US if Huawei doesn't get into trouble?
- ciarannolan 6y agoGuarantee you're going to catch downvotes for this comment, but you're 100% right. The evils of the US and China are not even comparable in the modern era. A million plus in concentration camps, secret police disappearing journalists/doctors/dissidents, absolute authoritarian control over citizens lives, replacement of ethnic minorities en masse, organ harvesting, wholesale theft of IP and technology, etc etc etc. It's such a tired and played out argument of "but in 1973 America did [bad thing]".
- ddoolin 6y agoAmerica still does bad things to this day, and they can definitely be compared to China's bad things...but one may far outweigh the other. I agree with the GP's sentiment but there's no reason we can't offer criticism on both.
- luckydata 6y agoGood
- aazaa 6y agoI'm curious what the perceived endgame is here. Is it to sink a specific company? Send a message to a country with clear military aspirations? Reshore the semiconductor industry? Play to the president's political base? What? If the goal is to reshore the semiconductor manufacturing industry, that's not going to work. Every country will have a competitive advantage in manufacturing against the US for as long as it prints the global reserve currency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma
- NonEUCitizen 6y agoNovember elections.
- ThalesX 6y agoI need to start by saying that I live in a country that's a member state of the European Union. I also need to add that I am in no way a fan of China, or the US of A, or any nation state or federal state for all that matter. Now that's out of the way, what I am a fan of is fighting for something instead of fighting against something. I don't believe or understand this narrative of fighting China. We've been outsourcing everything to China in the last two decades, we've helped a billion of their people come out of poverty and we've helped them build infrastructure that we only dream of. Now that they're a major power, we're starting to declare all sorts of wars on them. What if, instead of doing all these economic, military and other types of warfare, we would focus, together or alone (as states) in excelling. In building the best tech, in building the most awesome factories, in having the best quality of life for our people? What if instead of declaring war on China and moving our production to South East Asia or Africa and then helping them grow out of poverty while extracting as much value as we can (and then in the future we declare wars on them as they gain a foothold in the globalized economy), we help ourselves be awesome and in the process help South East Asia, and Africa, and whoever else can get into a win-win situation? I guess I'm a bit tired of this anti-China rhetoric sprouting up on Western social media. It's a classic case of identifying a 'common enemy' so that our people can be sheeped into whatever the powers that be want them to be sheeped into.
- snogaraleal 6y agoThe problem with China is that it has taken a hostile non-cooperative approach, ie it’s acting in bad faith. This is evidenced by its diplomatic failures with the region and with the world. The CCP is using economic leverage to coerce smaller players in the global system. The US has its hands tied here, there really are no other options geopolitically. I live in Europe as well, and sometimes it feels like European leadership is extremely confused: EU is a shitshow that nobody seems to be able to lead (just look at how long it took for agreeing on debt mutualization/Eurobond, Brexit, VDL apologizing to Italy, etc), Germany working with Russia on Nord stream 2 after its actions in Ukraine, Sweden pretending like the lax virus approach has nothing to do with its hyper leveraged banks and heavily indebted households, list goes on... and all we can do is entertain ourselves by making fun of Trump. We are a joke, we can’t even keep our union together. We can’t even pay for our military because daddy America has to foot the bill and if they don’t our European leaders start whining about lack of US leadership. The US Fed had enough vision to extend the dollar swap lines to more central banks including the Swedish central bank. For the ECB there is a permanent arrangement. Despite the “tough love“ we Europeans are getting on trade from the US, ultimately Europe will soon enough realize the US is its best ally. We just want freedom and fair economic practices. We won’t get it if we let China play communist game theory with the only planet we have.
- tacheiordache 6y agoIt seems like HUAWEI was determined to eat everybody's lunch in the first place and that was in large part a plan backed by the Communist Party in China. It seems that this is the backed response from the west, at least for America. Let China develop their own technology and then we'll see a different story and nothing will stop them from taking over the world, by excellence not by IP-theft and benefit from others research. On the other I was quite happy to see China rising out of the poverty. It would have been a good counterbalance to the western Capitalistic world. Unfortunately they played the same game but with different weapons: cheap labor, IP theft and large pools of talent to pick from. Maybe the obedience of Chinese played a role behind this growth for they all benefited. However, since Xi's rise to power the ambition to dominate Asia with a fist only grew. I hope the Chinese people don't loose the opportunity to change their future for the better.
- CypherSnyper 6y agoLet Huawei burn. Nobody needs a front organization for a wicked authoritarian regime stealing their technology and using it to track people. China is always going to be an upstart, because communist dictatorships will never be able to prevail over democracy and freedom.