8 ms·

My take: DJI, Apple, Huawei, Google etc are all in a similar boat where the governments they operate under have publicly and privately pressured them to use th

My take: DJI, Apple, Huawei, Google etc are all in a similar boat where the governments they operate under have publicly and privately pressured them to use their profitable platforms for spying or gathering evidence. This reduces their profitablity as consumers have less confidence the product isn't working against them. But in the case of DJI and Huawei and TikTok the US is more concerned about how those chinese companies erode US business like boeing, cisco or Facebook. And instead of saying it is primarily economic protectionism they make it a defense issue to try and tamp demand. In the end the best thing for consumers is if Apple, DJI, etc compete on having privacy preservation and feel compelled to make their products resistant to government influence. So this new DJI feature is a good thing for consumers it seems.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> My take: You're so wrong about saying this is not a national security issue. China has been in an undeclared war with the US for 40 years. You can learn more on the Youtube "China in Focus - NTD" channel. > feel compelled to make their products resistant to government influence. All Chinese companies are controlled by the CCP. What DJI wants is irrelevant. Each company in China over 50 employees has a CCP cell to monitor their obedience. Obligatory Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
libertine 6y ago
While I agree with you, I think there's something that should be pointed out: China stance on foreign companies doing business in China. Currently China wants all the perks of the open global market, while closing it's own. I don't understand how this is allowed.
- vkou 6y ago
  China's market is not closed to foreign companies. This isn't 1990 anymore. American brands are everywhere in China, from Teslas, to iPhones, to McDonalds, to Starbucks, to the NBA, to the list goes on and on and on. Google, Facebook, Apple each make billions of dollars from China, every year. Calling that a closed market is... Not at all accurate. It's by no means a fully[1] open market, but it's not a closed one. [1] The definition of fully also varies from country to country. Is Canada a fully open market? No. For example, there's a lot of government protectionism surrounding media, and media infrastructure. Is the US a fully open market? No - again, not in the case of media infrastructure. Neither is an open market when it comes to food, or medical drugs. (For good reason, in my opinion - but that's just that - a political opinion. Other people have different opinions on this subject.)
  - m0zg 6y ago
    > Google, Facebook, Apple each make billions of dollars from China, every year. How does _Facebook_ make "billions" in China in particular? It's completely banned there.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... Also, as others might point out that "Way into China is to abide by their rules and regulations" - which is not true when the restrictions imposed are to gut out the business and establish a CCP-controlled branch that serves only Chinese people. For example, Wikpedia is blocked, how is Wikipedia supposed to even enter the "market" (I know its a non-profit org). The truth is that China doesn't want western information, knowledge and values. This stance hides behind "rules and regulations".
    - shard 6y ago
      A company doesn't have to sell things to the local population to do business there. There are many companies in China which wish to access the user base that FB has. Here is an article from NYT talking about the $5B that FB made from China during 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/technology/facebook-china-internet.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/technology/facebook-china...
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      You forget; users are not Facebook customers. The advertisers are Facebook customers. Facebook may not be selling ads targeted to users in China, but it's sure as heck selling ads to Chinese companies. Facebook: you're not the customer, you're the product.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    It's not binary. China's market is more closed (or less open) than the US.
    - _jal 6y ago
- philips 6y ago
  I completely agree. I feel that China just directly protects their markets while for whatever reason the US hides behind a defense justification.
  - tmotwu 6y ago
    It would be socially destructive if America directly admits free market capitalism wasn't globally competitive after all. They don't have any other option but to hide behind national security justifications. To those who still think this is about national security and most definitely not protectionist actions: why aren't these companies blanket banned immediately rather than given arbitrary timelines? India has demonstrated it is possible to do so and continues to be a self sustaining democracy.
    - samatman 6y ago
      Free market capitalism is a condition of peace, in the real sense that there's a spectrum from tariffs, to bans, to economic sanctions, leading to outright war. Unilateral disarmament, where one party allows free access to markets while the other party does not, is actually a valid tactic. It's not always the wrong thing to do. But choosing a tit-for-tat strategy instead isn't some sort of mark against free market capitalism. It just means that America has gotten tired of China defecting. Which I approve of. Your mileage may vary.
      - tmotwu 6y ago
        I agree that there is a spectrum, and protectionist measures would not deviate from our economic values. Whether tariffs, bans, and economic sanctions are actually effective strategies is a separate discussion entirely. But clearly there is a notion of free market capitalism one side seems to go to great lengths in protecting - which explains why they have been enforcing it under a separate pretense.
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      The argument would be that it is not a current threat, but could be used as one in the future, hence the timeline to the ban, giving them time to right their ship, as it were. And even if this is a tit-for-tat retaliation against China, it isn't indicative of free market capitalism, because the 'tat' would be China closing off its own market and heavy handed government interference in any firm which wants to operate in China.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > I don't understand how this is allowed. While I'd say it should no longer be allowed, especially given China's relative place in the world compared to (say) 20 years ago, can you blame them for the initial desire? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation
- pizza 6y ago
  Excepting circumstances where China could be affecting regional shared resources (e.g. damming a river -> drought in neighboring country, for example) is this not just based on willing participation? I don't understand what exactly it is that is being 'allowed' that should be forbidden.. if China exports to foreign customers is it against moral sense to not allow in foreign business? Also, I know of a certain country that relies heavily on its ability to sanction countries from effective participation in the entire global market..
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Currently China wants all the perks of the open global market, while closing it's own. I don't understand how this is allowed. That's the same for the US. When it suits them there's sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, and questioning/forbiding foreign companies, investments, etc.
  - lacker 6y ago
    It isn’t the same at all. China routinely bans American internet companies for no apparent reason. Whereas the vast majority of Chinese companies are allowed to sell into the US. No other country operates like China does, with such drastic anti-foreign policies.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The US routinely bans foreign companies that threaten its cash cows, Bombardier is an example.
    - throw556437 6y ago
      There’s a very clear reason, they don’t follow Chinese censorship and data laws. Both Google and Facebook once operated in China, but after the multiple terrorist attacks, they were unwilling (or unable) to comply with Chinese laws. That’s why Skype and iMessage are available in China, they comply with Chinese laws.
      - liability 6y ago
        > but after the multiple terrorist attacks, 'Terrorist attacks' from who exactly? When French or Polish resistance members assassinated Germans, I bet the Nazis thought that was 'terrorism.' The Chinese government likes to cry and moans about 'terrorism' from Tibetans and Uyghurs, but the CCP are the real terrorists in these situations. Any American company that cooperates with them are abetting genocide.
        chloerei 6y ago
        Does your knowledge of Xinjiang and Tibet come from your own eyes, or from Western media propaganda?
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  It is "allowed" because everyone has so far benefited tremendously. It is of course possible to invest in China, most large Western companies have, and it is profitable. We've also all benefited from the huge pool of Chinese cheap labour. China has also obviously benefited through an incredible economic development, which actually also benefits Western economies.
- Aperocky 6y ago
  Closing it's own as in? With the exception of internet giants, everything else seemed to be well represented in China. name a western brand of physical good that's not available in China. Granted that our lives are more software oriented in this forum, majority of the trade in this planet is decidedly not.
  - dicomdan 6y ago
    If you are an average Chinese citizen you cannot access most of the internet due to the Firewall. It's a modern day protectionism at an extreme level given that increasingly large parts of the economy are digital services nowadays.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    China is actually opening up their economy, but they still have quite a number of bans on foreign companies: https://www.registrationchina.com/articles/china-negative-list-2020/ https://www.registrationchina.com/articles/china-negative-li...
  - lacker 6y ago
    Plenty of non-giant internet companies are banned in China as well.
    - throw556437 6y ago
      Do those companies follow China’s data and censorship laws?
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >Currently China wants all the perks of the open global market, while closing it's own. I don't understand how this is allowed. Because that's the equilibrium between the countries. Each side tries to negotiate whatever is most to their advantage and that's that. China wants more control over companies, the US wants access to what is going to be the world's largest market and source of qualified labour. Each side can say no and walk away. For many US companies however that'd represent a significant loss, so they accept the conditions. Same reason people give Apple a 30% cut on their store.
- nfc_ 6y ago
  China not being open to multinationals is a common narrative on HN and not supported by the data. In fact in consumer goods, foreign companies have more market share in China (40%) than the US (26%). https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/china/china%20and%20the%20world%20inside%20the%20dynamics%20of%20a%20changing%20relationship/mgi-china-and-the-world-full-report-june-2019-vf.ashx https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insight...
  - sheeshkebab 6y ago
    Foreign companies manufacturing goods in China that is... its hard to believe anything else given China’s $500b yearly trade surplus and tech transfer requirements. Also, report feels to have a bunch of speculative stats and projections.
- ping_pong 6y ago
  I truly hate Trump, but the one thing I agree with him on is taking on China via a trade war. We really do need to use economic pressure to force them to act in a fair way especially with trade and stealing company secrets. I don't think any other president would be dumb enough to attempt this, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
ShorsHammer 6y ago
DJI has been subject to a crazy amount of hobbyist and professional reverse engineering, much of it made public by now. I wouldn't underestimate the western multicopter scene and their ongoing hilarious shenanigans against the world's biggest drone maker. This article is 3 years old now, you'd be mistaken thinking people gave up being given bigger challenges: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3knkgn/dji-is-locking-down-its-drones-against-a-growing-army-of-diy-hackers https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3knkgn/dji-is-locking-dow...
systemvoltage 6y ago
> This reduces their profitablity as consumers have less confidence the product isn't working against them. Most consumers do not give a damn about privacy. It is a growing sentiment, true, but it is not the majority of the user base.
delfinom 6y ago
>But in the case of DJI and Huawei and TikTok the US is more concerned about how those chinese companies erode US business like boeing, cisco or Facebook. Good joke about Huawei and Cisco. I can tell you the people eating Cisco's lunch are all other domestic companies and even big tech companies making their own network hardware. Cisco on the other hand is an internal shitshow, they heavily outsource their software development to India resulting in "security patches" that attempt to just block user agents from triggering a exploit. :D
deeeeeplearning 6y ago
>But in the case of DJI and Huawei and TikTok the US is more concerned about how those chinese companies erode US business like boeing, cisco or Facebook DJI makes consumer grade products and Boeing is a military contractor? How exactly does DJI impact Boeing's bottom line?
- philips 6y ago
  Boeing does have UAV programs afaict. And from the article: > “The US Congress is considering banning the US federal government from using foreign-made drones as part of its 2021 National Defense Authorization Act,” reported Flight. A junior US defence minister, Ellen Lord, in charge of procurement, added to the aerospace magazine: “We looked at the fact that basically DJI from China had decimated our industrial base for small UAVs, quadcopters and so forth, through pricing that was sub-cost and so forth.”
  - 0xffff2 6y ago
    Boeing drones are things like the MQ-25 [0]. They don't compete with DJI. I'm a researcher (US government contractor) in the aerospace field, and they've been trying to ban us from using DJI drones for years. They keep pushing it back and making exceptions because it has been incredibly hard for us to find anything comparable that's made by a US company (and even then the hardware is all Chinese, it's just assembled in the US and presumably running software that phones home to a server in the US rather than one in China.) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - kube-system 6y ago
      Not a surprise, since I doubt many US companies can sell their drones sub-cost.
coolspot 6y ago
> And instead of saying it is primarily economic protectionism they make it a defense issue to try and tamp demand. I don’t think there is any mechanism that allows such government action except the national security loophole.
jmpman 6y ago
Let’s say there are navy sailors making Tik Tom videos on their ballistic subs, an app could in theory use its inertial sensor to record the path of the sub. Once the phone and it’s sailor has surfaced, it could upload the data.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> My take: You're so wrong about saying this is not a national security issue. China has been in an undeclared war with the US for 40 years. You can learn more on the Youtube "China in Focus - NTD" channel. > feel compelled to make their products resistant to government influence. All Chinese companies are controlled by the CCP. What DJI wants is irrelevant. Each company in China over 50 employees has a CCP cell to monitor their obedience. Obligatory Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

libertine 6y ago

While I agree with you, I think there's something that should be pointed out: China stance on foreign companies doing business in China. Currently China wants all the perks of the open global market, while closing it's own. I don't understand how this is allowed.

vkou 6y ago
China's market is not closed to foreign companies. This isn't 1990 anymore. American brands are everywhere in China, from Teslas, to iPhones, to McDonalds, to Starbucks, to the NBA, to the list goes on and on and on. Google, Facebook, Apple each make billions of dollars from China, every year. Calling that a closed market is... Not at all accurate. It's by no means a fully[1] open market, but it's not a closed one. [1] The definition of fully also varies from country to country. Is Canada a fully open market? No. For example, there's a lot of government protectionism surrounding media, and media infrastructure. Is the US a fully open market? No - again, not in the case of media infrastructure. Neither is an open market when it comes to food, or medical drugs. (For good reason, in my opinion - but that's just that - a political opinion. Other people have different opinions on this subject.)
- m0zg 6y ago
  > Google, Facebook, Apple each make billions of dollars from China, every year. How does _Facebook_ make "billions" in China in particular? It's completely banned there.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... Also, as others might point out that "Way into China is to abide by their rules and regulations" - which is not true when the restrictions imposed are to gut out the business and establish a CCP-controlled branch that serves only Chinese people. For example, Wikpedia is blocked, how is Wikipedia supposed to even enter the "market" (I know its a non-profit org). The truth is that China doesn't want western information, knowledge and values. This stance hides behind "rules and regulations".
  - shard 6y ago
    A company doesn't have to sell things to the local population to do business there. There are many companies in China which wish to access the user base that FB has. Here is an article from NYT talking about the $5B that FB made from China during 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/technology/facebook-china-internet.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/technology/facebook-china...
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    You forget; users are not Facebook customers. The advertisers are Facebook customers. Facebook may not be selling ads targeted to users in China, but it's sure as heck selling ads to Chinese companies. Facebook: you're not the customer, you're the product.
- mulmen 6y ago
  It's not binary. China's market is more closed (or less open) than the US.
  - _jal 6y ago
philips 6y ago
I completely agree. I feel that China just directly protects their markets while for whatever reason the US hides behind a defense justification.
- tmotwu 6y ago
  It would be socially destructive if America directly admits free market capitalism wasn't globally competitive after all. They don't have any other option but to hide behind national security justifications. To those who still think this is about national security and most definitely not protectionist actions: why aren't these companies blanket banned immediately rather than given arbitrary timelines? India has demonstrated it is possible to do so and continues to be a self sustaining democracy.
  - samatman 6y ago
    Free market capitalism is a condition of peace, in the real sense that there's a spectrum from tariffs, to bans, to economic sanctions, leading to outright war. Unilateral disarmament, where one party allows free access to markets while the other party does not, is actually a valid tactic. It's not always the wrong thing to do. But choosing a tit-for-tat strategy instead isn't some sort of mark against free market capitalism. It just means that America has gotten tired of China defecting. Which I approve of. Your mileage may vary.
    - tmotwu 6y ago
      I agree that there is a spectrum, and protectionist measures would not deviate from our economic values. Whether tariffs, bans, and economic sanctions are actually effective strategies is a separate discussion entirely. But clearly there is a notion of free market capitalism one side seems to go to great lengths in protecting - which explains why they have been enforcing it under a separate pretense.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    The argument would be that it is not a current threat, but could be used as one in the future, hence the timeline to the ban, giving them time to right their ship, as it were. And even if this is a tit-for-tat retaliation against China, it isn't indicative of free market capitalism, because the 'tat' would be China closing off its own market and heavy handed government interference in any firm which wants to operate in China.
throw0101a 6y ago
> I don't understand how this is allowed. While I'd say it should no longer be allowed, especially given China's relative place in the world compared to (say) 20 years ago, can you blame them for the initial desire? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation
pizza 6y ago
Excepting circumstances where China could be affecting regional shared resources (e.g. damming a river -> drought in neighboring country, for example) is this not just based on willing participation? I don't understand what exactly it is that is being 'allowed' that should be forbidden.. if China exports to foreign customers is it against moral sense to not allow in foreign business? Also, I know of a certain country that relies heavily on its ability to sanction countries from effective participation in the entire global market..
coldtea 6y ago
>Currently China wants all the perks of the open global market, while closing it's own. I don't understand how this is allowed. That's the same for the US. When it suits them there's sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, and questioning/forbiding foreign companies, investments, etc.
- lacker 6y ago
  It isn’t the same at all. China routinely bans American internet companies for no apparent reason. Whereas the vast majority of Chinese companies are allowed to sell into the US. No other country operates like China does, with such drastic anti-foreign policies.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The US routinely bans foreign companies that threaten its cash cows, Bombardier is an example.
  - throw556437 6y ago
    There’s a very clear reason, they don’t follow Chinese censorship and data laws. Both Google and Facebook once operated in China, but after the multiple terrorist attacks, they were unwilling (or unable) to comply with Chinese laws. That’s why Skype and iMessage are available in China, they comply with Chinese laws.
    - liability 6y ago
      > but after the multiple terrorist attacks, 'Terrorist attacks' from who exactly? When French or Polish resistance members assassinated Germans, I bet the Nazis thought that was 'terrorism.' The Chinese government likes to cry and moans about 'terrorism' from Tibetans and Uyghurs, but the CCP are the real terrorists in these situations. Any American company that cooperates with them are abetting genocide.
      - chloerei 6y ago
        Does your knowledge of Xinjiang and Tibet come from your own eyes, or from Western media propaganda?
mytailorisrich 6y ago
It is "allowed" because everyone has so far benefited tremendously. It is of course possible to invest in China, most large Western companies have, and it is profitable. We've also all benefited from the huge pool of Chinese cheap labour. China has also obviously benefited through an incredible economic development, which actually also benefits Western economies.
Aperocky 6y ago
Closing it's own as in? With the exception of internet giants, everything else seemed to be well represented in China. name a western brand of physical good that's not available in China. Granted that our lives are more software oriented in this forum, majority of the trade in this planet is decidedly not.
- dicomdan 6y ago
  If you are an average Chinese citizen you cannot access most of the internet due to the Firewall. It's a modern day protectionism at an extreme level given that increasingly large parts of the economy are digital services nowadays.
- kube-system 6y ago
  China is actually opening up their economy, but they still have quite a number of bans on foreign companies: https://www.registrationchina.com/articles/china-negative-list-2020/ https://www.registrationchina.com/articles/china-negative-li...
- lacker 6y ago
  Plenty of non-giant internet companies are banned in China as well.
  - throw556437 6y ago
    Do those companies follow China’s data and censorship laws?
Barrin92 6y ago
>Currently China wants all the perks of the open global market, while closing it's own. I don't understand how this is allowed. Because that's the equilibrium between the countries. Each side tries to negotiate whatever is most to their advantage and that's that. China wants more control over companies, the US wants access to what is going to be the world's largest market and source of qualified labour. Each side can say no and walk away. For many US companies however that'd represent a significant loss, so they accept the conditions. Same reason people give Apple a 30% cut on their store.
nfc_ 6y ago
China not being open to multinationals is a common narrative on HN and not supported by the data. In fact in consumer goods, foreign companies have more market share in China (40%) than the US (26%). https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/china/china%20and%20the%20world%20inside%20the%20dynamics%20of%20a%20changing%20relationship/mgi-china-and-the-world-full-report-june-2019-vf.ashx https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insight...
- sheeshkebab 6y ago
  Foreign companies manufacturing goods in China that is... its hard to believe anything else given China’s $500b yearly trade surplus and tech transfer requirements. Also, report feels to have a bunch of speculative stats and projections.
ping_pong 6y ago
I truly hate Trump, but the one thing I agree with him on is taking on China via a trade war. We really do need to use economic pressure to force them to act in a fair way especially with trade and stealing company secrets. I don't think any other president would be dumb enough to attempt this, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

ShorsHammer 6y ago

DJI has been subject to a crazy amount of hobbyist and professional reverse engineering, much of it made public by now. I wouldn't underestimate the western multicopter scene and their ongoing hilarious shenanigans against the world's biggest drone maker. This article is 3 years old now, you'd be mistaken thinking people gave up being given bigger challenges: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3knkgn/dji-is-locking-down-its-drones-against-a-growing-army-of-diy-hackers https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3knkgn/dji-is-locking-dow...

systemvoltage 6y ago

> This reduces their profitablity as consumers have less confidence the product isn't working against them. Most consumers do not give a damn about privacy. It is a growing sentiment, true, but it is not the majority of the user base.

delfinom 6y ago

>But in the case of DJI and Huawei and TikTok the US is more concerned about how those chinese companies erode US business like boeing, cisco or Facebook. Good joke about Huawei and Cisco. I can tell you the people eating Cisco's lunch are all other domestic companies and even big tech companies making their own network hardware. Cisco on the other hand is an internal shitshow, they heavily outsource their software development to India resulting in "security patches" that attempt to just block user agents from triggering a exploit. :D

deeeeeplearning 6y ago

>But in the case of DJI and Huawei and TikTok the US is more concerned about how those chinese companies erode US business like boeing, cisco or Facebook DJI makes consumer grade products and Boeing is a military contractor? How exactly does DJI impact Boeing's bottom line?

philips 6y ago
Boeing does have UAV programs afaict. And from the article: > “The US Congress is considering banning the US federal government from using foreign-made drones as part of its 2021 National Defense Authorization Act,” reported Flight. A junior US defence minister, Ellen Lord, in charge of procurement, added to the aerospace magazine: “We looked at the fact that basically DJI from China had decimated our industrial base for small UAVs, quadcopters and so forth, through pricing that was sub-cost and so forth.”
- 0xffff2 6y ago
  Boeing drones are things like the MQ-25 [0]. They don't compete with DJI. I'm a researcher (US government contractor) in the aerospace field, and they've been trying to ban us from using DJI drones for years. They keep pushing it back and making exceptions because it has been incredibly hard for us to find anything comparable that's made by a US company (and even then the hardware is all Chinese, it's just assembled in the US and presumably running software that phones home to a server in the US rather than one in China.) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-25_Stingray
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Not a surprise, since I doubt many US companies can sell their drones sub-cost.

coolspot 6y ago

> And instead of saying it is primarily economic protectionism they make it a defense issue to try and tamp demand. I don’t think there is any mechanism that allows such government action except the national security loophole.

jmpman 6y ago

Let’s say there are navy sailors making Tik Tom videos on their ballistic subs, an app could in theory use its inertial sensor to record the path of the sub. Once the phone and it’s sailor has surfaced, it could upload the data.