8 ms·

The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

77 points by leto_ii 2y ago

leto_ii 2y ago
https://archive.ph/JgNQg https://archive.ph/JgNQg
pstrateman 2y ago
The US wanted them out of the US market and mostly succeeded there.
- aninteger 2y ago
  Not in the military at all. The military asks for an exception each year. https://www.lightreading.com/security/the-us-is-moving-very-very-slowly-away-from-huawei https://www.lightreading.com/security/the-us-is-moving-very-...
  - jonnybgood 2y ago
    To be clear, Huawei products are not being used within the US military. The US military is in countries that do use Huawei products. In order to properly operate in these countries the US military would have to use or connect to these products in some way.
    - asadotzler 2y ago
      Right. So they are not so much a threat that our military won't use them in foreign territory but they are so much of a threat that consumers are banned from getting them in the US. What a joke.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        This logic doesn't hold. DoD networks are segmented. The threat model for Chinese-controlled core telecom equipment used in American markets is not the same as the threat model for bridge connectivity to foreign networks that are already controlled by any theoretical Huawei implant by dint of running Huawei gear.
akira2501 2y ago
> “The U.S. government’s campaign against Huawei is inadvertently bolstering the company’s resilience, echoing the age-old adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” Then in the _very next_ paragraphs: > State money was critical. [...] billions of dollars flowed from the Chinese government to Huawei through preferential buying contracts and subsidies So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what US policy is if China has decided to make you a defacto state run company. This is a bizarre and meandering analysis that doesn't convey anything useful.
- woooooo 2y ago
  It's state policy on both sides. Cutting China and particularly Huawei off from access to our tech has forced them to develop capacity domestically, at a state and corporate level. Good for tech in an abstract space race kind of way, but pretty debatable as a geopolitical move.
  - onepointsixC 2y ago
    It didn't force them to forced them to develop capacity domestically. They always wanted to do that and have been spending princely sums yearly to try to get there. It removed the ability to have a cheap and gradual transition from foreign ones to domestic ones.
    - elcritch 2y ago
      Turns out that if the US Govt really wanted to hobble Huawei long term then it should have “given” them upper management from Boeing, Intel, and a few others instead. Maybe even subsidize some McKenzie consultants for them!
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anything? China is succeeding at securing their industry and supply chains despite (or because of) our Cold War II efforts. Meanwhile, if Intel is any indication we are consistently failing to secure our industry and supply chains and China hasn't even had to do anything besides just exist.
lysace 2y ago
1. This article's headline made me lose some trust in the WSJ, given that: 2. Huawei has gotten stronger in China and weaker elsewhere. https://archive.ph/JgNQg/d40b9dd122f4675c47c29c9a4528bb6073469e50.png https://archive.ph/JgNQg/d40b9dd122f4675c47c29c9a4528bb60734... Edit: Flagged? What rule does this comment break?
- imp0cat 2y ago
  Why was this flagged?
- j_maffe 2y ago
  Is it only confusing to me that the Americas region is the lowest one and that it barely dropped after the sanctions?
  - lysace 2y ago
    1. EMEA is surprisingly often a larger market than "the Americas" 2. "that it barely dropped after the sanctions" - good point.
  - verdverm 2y ago
    What countries are included in "Americas"? I speculate the Southern Hemisphere is the biggest driver in that category and is one of the places China is most actively engaging. Africa is another region, but lumped together with Europe. The chart, as is, doesn't have sufficient detail to parse out the effects of sanctions from the regions participating vs not. I wonder if that is the point of the chart's design... WSJ?
- mrmetanoia 2y ago
  It also just seems unnecessarily hostile as a headline - the US banned/sanctioned them after seemingly valid security concerns. It wasn't like they just said 'hahaha let's knock down Huawei!' Nobody likes to have to replace a vendor ;) I'd speculate someone somewhere at these Chinese companies has to be thinking like Dr. Evil's henchmen after turning his empire into legit successful businesses worth more than the evil schemes he cooks up. "ugh do we have to put backdoors in, they're gonna figure it out eventually and we're already making money, what's the point of this again? Down with our enemies or something?"
6gvONxR4sf7o 2y ago
I’m always disappointed when the government’s response to worries about other people spying on us isn’t to enforce privacy. Instead they just say no to specific outsiders invading our privacy. Seems so broken.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  I would still buy a Huawei phone. They're high quality for the price point, and while I don't like the Chinese government spying on me, I'd prefer the Chinese government spying on me over the US government spying on me. The Chinese government isn't using wiretap information to gain no-knock warrants which are a thinly-veiled excuse to kill US citizens. That's the US (local) government(s) doing that.

77 points by leto_ii 2y ago

leto_ii 2y ago

https://archive.ph/JgNQg https://archive.ph/JgNQg

pstrateman 2y ago

The US wanted them out of the US market and mostly succeeded there.

aninteger 2y ago
Not in the military at all. The military asks for an exception each year. https://www.lightreading.com/security/the-us-is-moving-very-very-slowly-away-from-huawei https://www.lightreading.com/security/the-us-is-moving-very-...
- jonnybgood 2y ago
  To be clear, Huawei products are not being used within the US military. The US military is in countries that do use Huawei products. In order to properly operate in these countries the US military would have to use or connect to these products in some way.
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    Right. So they are not so much a threat that our military won't use them in foreign territory but they are so much of a threat that consumers are banned from getting them in the US. What a joke.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      This logic doesn't hold. DoD networks are segmented. The threat model for Chinese-controlled core telecom equipment used in American markets is not the same as the threat model for bridge connectivity to foreign networks that are already controlled by any theoretical Huawei implant by dint of running Huawei gear.

akira2501 2y ago

> “The U.S. government’s campaign against Huawei is inadvertently bolstering the company’s resilience, echoing the age-old adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” Then in the _very next_ paragraphs: > State money was critical. [...] billions of dollars flowed from the Chinese government to Huawei through preferential buying contracts and subsidies So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what US policy is if China has decided to make you a defacto state run company. This is a bizarre and meandering analysis that doesn't convey anything useful.

woooooo 2y ago
It's state policy on both sides. Cutting China and particularly Huawei off from access to our tech has forced them to develop capacity domestically, at a state and corporate level. Good for tech in an abstract space race kind of way, but pretty debatable as a geopolitical move.
- onepointsixC 2y ago
  It didn't force them to forced them to develop capacity domestically. They always wanted to do that and have been spending princely sums yearly to try to get there. It removed the ability to have a cheap and gradual transition from foreign ones to domestic ones.
  - elcritch 2y ago
    Turns out that if the US Govt really wanted to hobble Huawei long term then it should have “given” them upper management from Boeing, Intel, and a few others instead. Maybe even subsidize some McKenzie consultants for them!
Dalewyn 2y ago
>So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anything? China is succeeding at securing their industry and supply chains despite (or because of) our Cold War II efforts. Meanwhile, if Intel is any indication we are consistently failing to secure our industry and supply chains and China hasn't even had to do anything besides just exist.

lysace 2y ago

1. This article's headline made me lose some trust in the WSJ, given that: 2. Huawei has gotten stronger in China and weaker elsewhere. https://archive.ph/JgNQg/d40b9dd122f4675c47c29c9a4528bb6073469e50.png https://archive.ph/JgNQg/d40b9dd122f4675c47c29c9a4528bb60734... Edit: Flagged? What rule does this comment break?

imp0cat 2y ago
Why was this flagged?
j_maffe 2y ago
Is it only confusing to me that the Americas region is the lowest one and that it barely dropped after the sanctions?
- lysace 2y ago
  1. EMEA is surprisingly often a larger market than "the Americas" 2. "that it barely dropped after the sanctions" - good point.
- verdverm 2y ago
  What countries are included in "Americas"? I speculate the Southern Hemisphere is the biggest driver in that category and is one of the places China is most actively engaging. Africa is another region, but lumped together with Europe. The chart, as is, doesn't have sufficient detail to parse out the effects of sanctions from the regions participating vs not. I wonder if that is the point of the chart's design... WSJ?
mrmetanoia 2y ago
It also just seems unnecessarily hostile as a headline - the US banned/sanctioned them after seemingly valid security concerns. It wasn't like they just said 'hahaha let's knock down Huawei!' Nobody likes to have to replace a vendor ;) I'd speculate someone somewhere at these Chinese companies has to be thinking like Dr. Evil's henchmen after turning his empire into legit successful businesses worth more than the evil schemes he cooks up. "ugh do we have to put backdoors in, they're gonna figure it out eventually and we're already making money, what's the point of this again? Down with our enemies or something?"

6gvONxR4sf7o 2y ago

I’m always disappointed when the government’s response to worries about other people spying on us isn’t to enforce privacy. Instead they just say no to specific outsiders invading our privacy. Seems so broken.

kerkeslager 2y ago
I would still buy a Huawei phone. They're high quality for the price point, and while I don't like the Chinese government spying on me, I'd prefer the Chinese government spying on me over the US government spying on me. The Chinese government isn't using wiretap information to gain no-knock warrants which are a thinly-veiled excuse to kill US citizens. That's the US (local) government(s) doing that.