Posts by Avon B7

Tell me Huawei: Chinese giant wants to know what made EU label it high security risk

Re: I guess they can't just say the real reason...

Yet you cannot name a single case where what you are suggesting, actually happened.

Huawei follows the rules. It has contracts to comply with. Its activity is independently audited. Carriers know what is hoping down with traffic.

There is no way on earth that the company would even risk what you are proposing.

Please provide information of any case because it would be like the Titanic hitting the iceberg.

30 years. Now in 170 countries. According to Huawei not a single major breach.

Re: Just today...

No one should even get into a booth without showing a badge. If they do, there will be very little need for secrecy anyway.

Any Chinese dude snapping photos for 10 seconds and moving on is probably just a Chinese guy snapping photos.

In any company, no restricted access device, prototype or technology demo will ever be on show. It will be in a back room of the booth and no one without invitation will ever get near it.

Re: Yet another piece of pro-Chinese advocacy.

Haven't we been through this point already?

If a smoking gun had existed three years ago, all the drawbridges of Europe would have been raised and moats filled by now.

The US would still be on a world tour of every ally to beat its chest and tell everyone 'we told you!'

Huawei would be basically dead.

All you yourself can point to are allegations.

But, hey, sometimes allegations are all you need.

https://apac.news/turnbull-says-no-huawei-smoking-gun/

Take note of full disclosure at the end of that piece. Not that it affects the reported content, which is straight from the horse's mouth.

Re: I guess they can't just say the real reason...

No. I am not a Huawei employee, nor have I been one previously. I have no connection with the company.

Re: I guess they can't just say the real reason...

Any data transfer would be known about.

If transfer is part of the deal, it would be in compliance with local legislation and, of late especially, in line with best practice guidelines laid down by government institutions. They include security, hardening, logging and audit. Most likely, data transfer to a different jurisdiction of that of the carrier would not be permitted for data protection reasons although in some cases, certain types of data are transfered.

Incident response and recovery absolutely requires local access to (preferably air gapped) hard copies of data in the case of the network becoming unavailable. Obviously it has to be up-to-date. Resilience to MFA exploits is also becoming a key concern.

You should detail some of the cases you mentioned. I wonder if they had contractual failings.

Employee transfer does NOT require relocation to China.

Often, if the managed services change hands, personnel currently running them can be transferred as part of the deal.

If Ericsson loses a managed services contract to Huawei for example, it would not be unusual for the new deal see Ericsson employees transferred to Huawei. It is not 'political'.

Under no circumstances does the carrier relinquish ultimate control or supervision of its networks.

Can things go wrong? They can go wrong in any scenario. Not just with managed services. New technologies require new protections and not only technical but from new legislation. 'Everything as a service' is picking up pace and will probably be where the industry is headed with more and more cloud or intercloud solutions coming to market.

The sheer amount of data that needs managing and the speed with which it is moved around demands new ways of dealing with it.

Carriers are becoming more than carriers in the traditional sense. Private 5G networks are now popping up in some scenarios, IoT is coming of age. The network itself is becoming the 'sensor' in some industries.

Huawei claims that in almost 30 years of operation it has not seen a single major breach in its operations around the globe. There will always be a first time but trying to argue that they would actively participate in trying to make one itself is frankly, nuts. It would be the end of the company outside China, and rightly so.

WHY would it do anything that would lead to its death?

Something catastrophic could happen anywhere and to any company. A few years ago there were rumours of a 'bug' at Google that could have potentially been exploited and used to delete a huge amount of YouTube content. A bug.

Network resilience from an ICT perspective is built into the design. It is important not to lose track of that.

True loss of network communications is most likely to be caused in a major war scenario and in that case we already know that undersea cabling will be targeted along with satellite operations and surgical strikes on data centers. Of course, in a major war scenario of that kind there will be a lot more to worry about than networks and carriers.

Re: I guess they can't just say the real reason...

Huawei has over 200,000 employees. It would be mission impossible to PV all of them.

I've actually been interviewed for a PV candidate position at GCHQ so I know the complexities and logistics of the task.

It is likely that some people do get embedded but not only from the CCP. From US interests too. And from other countries.

Any industry deemed strategic will have to managed the same problems be they Nokia, Ericsson, Huawei, Samsung, Qualcomm etc.

At the same time, internal processes within those companies will try to pick up on unusual activity by employees and root them out if possible.

I've seen Google's caged servers in critical infrastructure data centers, which also provide housing services to the big carriers (whose servers were not protected from rogue employees).

Huawei deals with over a million external intrusion attempts on its systems a day. It is a prized target.

The data center I just mentioned would send out security teams about 12 times a week to investigate potential illicit activity off site.

Famously Operation Shotgiant actually worked for a time.

Yes, Huawei code (from many years ago) was deemed 'sloppy' in some areas.

We cannot compare that code to its rivals because they are not as transparent as Huawei.

Fast forward to the modern day world and we see that Huawei is showing signs of having put security right at the top of the list.

With 5G, security was never an afterthought though. Especially with the rise of IoT in networked devices.

Huawei put its HarmonyOS kernel up for security certification but the results were not newsworthy at many sites that, ironically, were pushing all the allegations about Huawei's threat potential.

This was the result:

https://itbrief.co.uk/story/huawei-obtains-security-certification-for-smart-device-oss

Re: I guess they can't just say the real reason...

You seem to be unaware that managed services involves the transfer of employees from the company contracting the service to the company providing the service.

The AU claims were simply allegations and never substantiated and I believe the contract with Huawei was even renewed.

Re: Yet another piece of pro-Chinese advocacy.

A China advocate? No.

"BLATANT LIES"? Much less.

"Outlandish"? To you, that's clear.

Someone who has actually followed Huawei for years and has a pretty good knowledge base as a result? Yes.

So, you had to go back to a 2013 report which speaks about another report that speaks of 'possibilities'?

How many others did you find along the way?

And in the following years and through continuous security reviews by carriers and the National Cyber Security Council? What popped up (save for a report on sloppy coding, which Huawei said it would address through a $2 billion investment)?

What could you fish out? Very little of any substance, right?

Worth noting is that the NCSC also pointed out that it could not know the state of code from competing vendors as they were not subject to the same levels of inspection or controls.

Strange, seeing as they contain US designed silicon which is made in China.

Not worth peeking into?

This was stated:

"Firstly, in terms of competitors, it’s worth remembering that Huawei openly shows its code to GCHQ [UK government intelligence and security organisation]. Others do not. As there isn’t similar transparency regarding the software and hardware of Huawei’s competitors, it’s impossible to know the overall rate of defects in their computer systems."

...

... UK telecoms networks “are secure, regardless of the vendors used"

https://www.raconteur.net/global-business/huawei-5g-competition

'The smoking gun'

Once again. Allegations. Yet again, a report says another report says...

Will you now throw in the African Union, LeMonde story just for good measure?

Come on! The very article you linked to said this:

"A spokesperson for Huawei said it “welcomes genuine scrutiny based on facts, not on unsubstantiated allegations. We have been hearing allegations about so called smoking guns for decades. Facts speak louder than words.”

What did Germany do with 'the smoking gun'?

"About the Huawei CFO, Meng Wanzhou, this has to do with violating US law by conspiring to defraud US Banks and ship equipment to Iran."

When you say 'US law', are you referring to the extraterritorial 'sanctions' that the US imposes on sovereign nations? Because when when HSBC got caught breaking those, it got a fine. Its CFO wasn't put under house arrest on foreign soil for years. And while we are at it. The case on Meng Wanzhou was getting shakier by the minute as key witnesses suddenly 'forgot' what actually happened on the day of her detention. Strange, as usual practice is to go through a debriefing process, cross all the 'Ts' and dot all the 'Is' and formulate reports, you know, just in case! And this was a major geopolitical storm in the making but no one bothered to do the groundwork, pre or post?

And worst of all, the fact that the US deliberately held back slides from the now infamous PowerPoint which would have shown that it already had some key information. It selectively omitted multiple critical statements made by Meng during her presentation.

It tried, tooth and nail, to get those slides kept out of the extradition case.

HSBC was aware of Huawei's dealings with Skycom. We know this. That much was admitted officially but they tried to claim only 'junior staff' were aware of those facts. Hard to believe seeing that Huawei was one of its major clients and at the end of the day, 'compliance' responsibilities fall on HSBC too.

My points stand in spite of your accusations and footstamping.

Re: I guess they can't just say the real reason...

Nothing gets done without the carrier knowing.

That was basically the entire story about the now infamous Bloomberg Vodafone Italy story (or non-story)

Carrier don't just hand over control and pray.

Re: Just today...

The convention wasn't named. That would have provided important background information.

Take a walk around MWC Barcelona and you will see cameras literally everywhere from press, visitors and interested parties.

The objects on display are there precisely to be seen. This year, and due to geopolitical tensions, Huawei taped over the names of chip suppliers on some of the boards on display but you could take all the photos you wanted.

In these scenarios 'for your eyes only' equipment is kept in reserved areas of stands with appropriate security.

Every player obtains hardware from competitors and literally takes it apart. That is part of the business.

Re: This is oversimplistic.

Groundless is the perfect term and we do not need insider knowledge.

The US has been trying to destroy Huawei for years now. It has focused the bulk of technology foreign policy on stopping China by choking Huawei.

Those words 'destroy' and 'choke' are not mine. They were spoken by high ranking members of the US administration.

Over a decade ago during the original batch of court cases the US government spread a net so wide that it caught a company up in the legal process simply because it had 'Huawei' in its name.

The FBI have tried sting operations. The US (extraterritorially) got Huawei's CFO put under house arrest for years. They even went so far as re-opening previously settled civil cases just to have 'something' to get their teeth into.

The Germans asked for a smoking gun. The US replied that one wasn't needed. The risk was enough to go on. One German minister ironically fired back (pun intended) that if risk was a sole indicator the US should tread carefully.

The UK looked deep into Huawei's gear and found nothing national security related and gave Huawei the OK.

The UK actually pushed back against Trump.

Believe me. If the US actually had something, ANYTHING, it would have at least shown it to its allies privately. Is there a bigger ally than the 'special' UK?

It obviously didn't have anything and that is why the UK initially pushed back. Later the US had to bully its desires onto to the UK.

As for the Huawei handset business in the US. That is directly tied to the ICT and national security aspects and entirely valid.

In 2017 Huawei was due to announce a nationwide tie up with AT&T for them to carry the Mate 10. That deal was scuppered at the last minute via arm twisting from the US government.

Huawei had spent a full year tuning the Kirin970 to AT&T infrastructure.

AT&T was a major Huawei partner in Mexico at the time.

How many private interviews has Tim Cook had with US presidents?

Re: This is oversimplistic.

No. You are nit picking.

To be clear, the original wording I replied to was: 'US equipment vendor'.

You, on the other hand are highlighting 'key infrastructure player'.

Is there a substantial difference, though?

Nokia would not be competitive without Marvell and the same can probably be said of Ericsson. Marvell is a key interest here and in fact fully fits the equipment vendor label.

Not just because of its ICT silicon (one of its business lines) but because it actually does have a 5G infrastructure carrier division too.

Of the Big Three (two of which, ironically, are minnows) only Huawei bakes it's own silicon (via HiSilicon).

As for irony, the struggle is painted as a fight for national security, but key EU 5G technologies actually have US Marvell baked silicon sitting at the hearts of their hardware.

Nothing to worry about?

Re: I guess they can't just say the real reason...

Huawei can take down all their comms on their side, just like every other player.

ICT is an international, standards based collection of communications technologies.

Once delivered to carriers, Huawei has no control of the network from a carrier perspective. Carriers, in the case of Huawei, can have access to the source code (under Huawei supervision). There is no 'kill switch' in the science fiction context because comms do not belong to any single company.

Yes, Huawei manages hundreds of thousands of undersea cabling, routing comms around the world. Cloud services are growing too. That could be shut down or sabotaged. The same applies to every other provider and the system has been in place for decades without issue.

Re: This is oversimplistic.

There most definitely are major US 5G players even if they are 'behind the scenes'. Marvell is a key infrastructure player and Qualcomm holds a decent patent portfolio and influence.

The Huawei situation from a US perspective has multiple fronts.

Protectionism is one of those. Losing technological influence is another.

Is there a single reason that supports banning the sale of Huawei handsets in the US but allowing those from other Chinese brands if the Chinese government supposedly has access to ALL Chinese companies?

Tim Cook had two private meetings with Trump prior to the US sanctions.

As for having something to disclose to allies, that is completely groundless. If they had something there would never have been ANY resistance from allies in banning the company. In fact successive US presidents would have loved to have something (anything) to wave around.

That would have killed Huawei internationally in one foul swoop.

Re: Just today...

Why not at least name the convention?

I doubt a photo taken from a booth is likely to provide any information of use and, by definition, any device on public display would be fair game for photos unless otherwise prohibited with appropriate signage.

Ethics are irrelevant here but if ethical issues were the order of the day you would end up with everybody in the same bucket for one reason or another.

What counts are facts, evidence and laws.

Guidelines are not laws and Huawei's complaint is reasonable.

Is it reasonable for Spain, for example, to say EU subsidies will only go to trusted ICT suppliers, accept applications for the grants, but hold back on actually publishing the list of trusted vendors?

Of course not. That's why Huawei and Vodafone have legally challenged the way Spain has acted and Orange fully supports the challenge.

The UK used similar tactics. Only later was it revealed that someone from the US administration had flown in and literally shouted US demands to Boris Johnson until he conceded.

The same administration that managed to speak of, cough, 'clean' networks and keep a straight face!

As for legislation, the Chinese law angle has been debunked by experts. The upshot is that the same goals are achievable, through law, basically everywhere. Often, in the case of the US especially, laws are simply ignored anyway. We know this thanks to Snowden.

It is also worthwhile remembering that a lot of Huawei businesses are not legally 'Chinese' anyway. All its consumer cloud business is run by Aspiegel Ltd in Ireland.

Pot calls the kettle hack as China claims Uncle Sam did digital sneak peek first

Operation Shotgiant

Thanks to Snowden and the Crypto AG saga we all know to what lengths the US will go to in order to get its tentacles into other countries networks.

The same can be said of all nations with the capacity to carry out such initiatives. That includes China but also the UK, Russia, EU member states, Five Eyes members etc.

However, for the US to come out and promote its 'Clean Networks' programme was both an insult and a joke. How could they even say that with a straight face?

Networks are based on international standards. Those are the only networks that count.

As for Chinese laws that require national participation from Chinese companies, well that is no different from the US issuing an executive order to get the same result. All under the guise of National Security.

What history and Snowden have shown us is that the US denies doing lots of things until it actually gets caught doing those exact same things. Lie through your teeth until you get whacked over the head with the truth.

The US is running scared after seeing Huawei gain so much influence in 5G standards and now conducting so much research into 6G.

They are so out of touch with reality that Trump even asked if they could create their very own 5G just for the US (maybe Apple could do it, he said). Look how difficult it is proving - today - for Apple even to get a 5G modem out of the door).

Huawei then put them on the spot publicly by offering to licence it's entire 5G stack (source code etc, the whole shebang) to a US consortium.

That offer was rejected and from there we knew this was not about 'clean' or even dirty networks. It was about control, protectionism and maintaining US hegemony in the tech sphere.

Huawei deals with an average of one million intrusion attempts on its systems every day.

So what if China has 7nm chips now, there's no Huawei it can make them 'at scale'

Re: another idea

Yesterday Huawei announced that's its portfolio of patents had surpassed 120,000. It remains one of the world's top patent filers (ironically within the US too).

That's just one Chinese company.

Re: What ?

ASML acquired Cymer Inc in 2013.

Even though Cymer is now owned by ASML the US government still assumes its technology to be of 'US origin' and therefore subject to extraterritorial sanctions.

This is just one example in relation to ASML and lithography.

In the field of EDA tools, Siemens acquired Mentor Graphics in 2017 and also finds itself subject to sanctions.

On top of that, with the tightening of restrictions US citizens were banned from working for Chinese companies, losing their jobs in the process.

Being born a US citizen makes you ineligible for certain Chinese employers as it makes you US origin.

That said, thousands of technological advances are made for US interests by native Chinese citizens (some have chosen to become US citizens, some haven't) and if those Chinese aren't hounded out or accused of spying, the US has no qualms about taking those advances as their own.

It is about having your cake and eating it.

I fully expect companies which have found themselves subject to extraterritorial sanctions to design the US technology out of their products to remain competitive. After all, for most of them, China is their biggest customer.

Currently, in the case of ASML, there is an extra complication. The Dutch government (pressured by the US) has imposed export restrictions on ASML.

They won't last long when they realise that companies like Huawei are actively investigating their own EUV options and will become a formidable competitor to one of its most important companies.

It's the Abbott and Costello Show!

Trump got the ball rolling on Huawei by strong-arming AT&T out of carrying the Mate 10 in the US. I'm still waiting to see the explanation of how exactly that represented a national security threat. Of course it never really was, was it?

And if the Chinese government were really hell bent on using consumer phones to eavesdrop on Americans, why wouldn't they use any and all Chinese brands? Seeing as, according to the US at least, all Chinese companies report to the government? What gives?

No. Huawei got whacked simply because it was singled out as a real threat to American hegemony in the tech sphere. Protectionism, pure and simple.

Then Trump started tweeting his every thought in real time (until Twitter blocked him) and made it clear that economics was the real deal here even though 'national security' would be the blanket used to cover every move.

Trump was surely the biggest national security threat of all!

So? What next? Well Tim Cook had at least two 'private' conversations with Trump around that time and was surely feeling the heat of Huawei.

Huawei phones were blazing a trail all over Europe at the expence of Apple’s iPhones and, at the time, Huawei was poised to kick start the fourth industrial revolution via 5G (somewhere where the US had little to nothing to offer).

So we got the Entity List (which in hindsight was probably just a list drawn up by a collection of titties), designed to crush and choke Chinese interests.

Of course, all this was taking place under the backdrop of a trade war (also initiated by the Orange One) that the US couldn't possibly win.

It had to pump billions into the farming industry to stop it from collapsing as a result.

Did no one tell Trump that the US trade deficit was basically with the whole world? Not just China.

It had to rip and replace all existing Huawei kit in rural areas (more billions) and after protesting for years that China was subsidising its tech industry, Biden came up with an identical plan! More billions, this time on the CHiPS Act although subsidies were not in any shape or form unusual for US (or EU) business.

Of course, there were plenty of strings attached and all of them designed to cut China out of the picture.

Now, China itself was already on its own much touted roadmap to reducing technological dependence on other countries, so the only thing US sanctions have done is to accelerate that process, and wholly at the expense of the US semi-conductor industry which is now reeling both economically and technologically.

They were alarmed that Huawei managed to even get a new chip out the door. Now they are trying to claim that that is 'OK' because they can't produce at scale!

Wait a sec!

Who was investigating this? Abbott or Costello?

Two months ago Qualcomm formally announced it would see 'no further material revenue' from Huawei. Excuse me? That alone means millions in lost chipset sales. Was no one paying attention?

Maybe Huawei had a plan?

After all, when you stop placing orders for millions of chipsets you are normally fairly sure that your alternative supplier can deliver, right?

Then we got the Kirin 9000s announced formally. And not on one phone. A whole series of phones!

Then we hear it is shipping in some Geely cars and will very probably ship in the Nova series next month and at least on tablet this month.

That's a LOT of devices that will need chips.

Yield, and therefore supply, certainly don't seem to be issues on the face of it.

And on the 25th of September there will be a new launch event which may include yet another phone (Mate RS).

On top that (and due to the hyperthreaded nature of the Kirin 9000s), rumours persist of a possible laptop like running a desktop flavor of HarmonyOS!

Now, the biggest and fattest Hawks (tits?) are calling for even more 'sanctions'.

So if plan A backfired, doubling down on the same tactics in plan B is guaranteed to work!?

Ladies and Gentlemen of the US Administration.

You screwed up from the outset!

Extraterritorial sanctions (never ever a good thing).

Weaponising technology (great move. Not!)

Bullying allies!

Forcing adversaries to home brew alternative solutions and create direct competitors for US interests.

Fiendish plan Baldrick!

So after three years of watching Huawei turn the ship in a completely new direction, they are beginning to show the fruits of their efforts.

TechInsights said clearly last year when SMIC released a 7nm chip for bitcoin mining. The key takeaway wasn't 7nm. It was that the US had no national 7nm capacity of itself at all! It depended on Taiwan. China was technically ahead of the US in terms of dependency in that field.

Techinsights is back now with another big question.

What EDA tools (the US has a dominant position here) were used to design the Kirin 9000s. Their conclusion is that it is probably that Huawei has developed its own tools (in partnership with others). Ouch!

The amazing thing here is that things can still actually get far worse for US semiconductor interests.

Across the board.

It's not happening on Trump's watch though (which is all he ever wanted to avoid) but the dagger hasn't stopped inching its way into the heart of US tech interests yet.

At the end of the day, the biggest national security threat was Trump himself (and then Biden & Co.)!

Washington left with chip on shoulder after Huawei exposes export loophole lapses

I saw that. It was utter rubbish.

You only have to look at the Mate 60 series as a whole to see what is happening. It is estimated that around 90% of the lineup is now indigenous. In just under four years that kind of progress can only be described as unprecedented.

On the chip side, Huawei has been investing in every link in the chip design and manufacturing tool chain. This started in earnest in 2019. No one ever thought things could be turned around in a flash but considering the scope of its plans, it is crystal clear what path they are on.

Basically the plan is to de-Americanise and be self sufficient.

Now that the Chinese government has announced further funding for the industry and under more stringent supervision, we can expect to see real world progress over the short term.

The fact that Huawei has already informed Qualcomm that they will be placing no further orders with them is indicative of what they already know in terms of yield capacity. They are already confident that they can get through 2024 without needing US equipment.

They already have the Dutch built lithography machines and their own EUV patents, so it's not unreasonable to think they won't catch up. The question is of course, when?

The answer is probably sooner than the US thinks. That's on silicon based chips. It's anybody's guess as to when they will move beyond silicon.

They have EDA tools up and running, packaging advances ready to go. Photoresist research underway. Optics are improving.

The Kirin 9000s is already shipping in the Mate 60 and X5 phones. I hear Geely is also using it in cars. It will appear in tablets too.

How far off is the P70 series? It's just around the corner so it will be interesting to see what ships in them.

Maybe it's time to clip the wings of a few hawks

The reason licences are granted is so as not starve US semi conductor interests of much needed revenues, without which, it cannot fund future R&D.

Seeing as China is a huge consumer of semi conductor products, when it is cut off from technology, it only has one possible route, to develop it itself.

Now it is spawning competitors left, right and centre, that will end up going head to head with US companies.

Do these 'visonaries' on US select committees not understand that cutting China off from US technology will never work in the long term? It was never going to work from the outset and China has made more progress in four years than anybody in those committees ever dreamt of. Because it has been forced to!

Doubling down on restrictions will just worsen the situation.

Two thirds of Qualcomm's revenue comes from Chinese interests!

I'm going to speculate a bit here and postulate that Huawei has a plan. It's not like them to cancel all orders to Qualcomm, announce a return to a multi flagship per year cycle and not accommodate a tightening of restrictions.

I'd wager that they have already reached a point on hardware where US restrictions (however intense) will have a waning effectiveness going forward.

From here on in I reckon they'll simply improve on what they've already initiated.

The CEO of ASML has consistently said sanctions aren't the way and won't work. He's repeated the same line since 2019 and the most recent was this week on Dutch TV.

He is right.

It's time to bring Big Bird out and explain it to the Hawks!

SK hynix says no Huawei its memory should be in Chinese wonder-phone

Re: New old tech?

Huawei has consistently outspent the likes of Apple with R&D for longer than I can remember.

Its patent pool is massive and it continues to be one of the largest patent filers (even within the US) on the planet.

If they were using old, stockpiled chips, why did they wait until the end of 2023 to use them?

Clearly there is a much bigger picture here that you aren't seeing (even if these chips were stockpiled).

A lot has changed in a couple of years.

Qualcomm announced during its recent conference call that it would receive no further material revenues from Huawei. That pricked a lot of ears.

Now we have the Mate 60 series using self developed chips for the first time in a couple of years.

There was talk of 7nm SMIC success but everyone said yields were poor and costs were high.

But wait, we now have the Kirin 9000s on the Mate 60 series (which is selling out fast and projections are of sales of up to 15,000,000 units). They have just announced the X5 folding phone with the same chip and there is talk of a tablet too. That's a massive amount of product.

I would say yields don't look like an issue at all.

But let's take a look past this release.

At the start of the year, Huawei described sanctions as the 'new normal'. They also said they were moving back to the two flagship yearly release cycle (P and Mate series). Onto that you have to add at least three folding flagship releases (Pocket and X series) and onto that, all the non-flagship phones (Nova series etc).

In just a few months the P70 series will be here, too.

To me, that says Huawei fully expects to be able to satisfy chip demand across the board for the short to mid term. No matter what sanctions might come there way.

Why?

Because the Mate 60 series is reported to be 90% indigenous and every single supplier from that 90% has taken business away from US suppliers (who now can't supply Huawei due to sanctions).

The total of lost revenues for those US companies is 11 billion dollars annually (at a minimum). Those are figures from 2019 so they are probably going to be higher now.

That's 11 billion dollars (at a minimum - annually) that is going to fund Chinese R&D for improvement in its products.

Do you doubt those products will improve?

When they become competitive with those US suppliers on price and technology, they will enter direct competition with them.

First they lost access to their key customers. Then direct competitors appeared to compete with them worldwide.

Let's take just one area: EDA tools which are dominated by US companies. LAM Research had said the impact of losing Huawei amounted to around 2.5 billion dollars.

We know very well that Huawei has invested in the semiconductor tool chain. The entire toolchain. That includes EDA. Let's suppose for a moment that HiSilicon used Chinese EDA software to bring this chip to market.

Can you comprehend the seismic shift that represents?

Even if they used a pirated licence codes to use LAM tools, we know indigenous tools are coming. The result is the same. It's game changing, but right across the entire board.

The same applies to ASML and lithography. It looks fairly clear that ASML DUV equipment is being used for the Kirin9000s but we know that Huawei is filing lithography related patents so indigenous machines will come to market. The question here, is when? No one knows.

However, the thing almost no one is talking about is 'what comes next?'. All we hear about is China 'catching up' to current technology.

But what about post silicon? There is always a very real possibility in these fields that someone stop focusing on 'catching up' and instead leapfrog the competition.

Sanctions have forced the entire Chinese semiconductor industry to double down and come up with accelerated solutions. It's not like in 2018 when they could coast along while still importing foreign technology. Sanctions changed all that.

That's why the Mate 60 series is making so much news. It's symbolic.

Chinese meme-makers crown US Commerce Secretary as Huawei brand ambassador

Sanctions were always going to do more harm than good

From day one it was crystal clear to all onlookers and analysts that sanctions were a one shot wonder, with that sole bullet cruising straight into the collective head of the US administration.

Mr Maga Trump used to Tweet anything and everything that popped into his head (until he was banned). One such tweet contained the famous 'not on my watch' statement.

He didn't give a hoot about who would actually have to deal with the consequences of his actions.

So what are those consequences? The exact same ones that have been laid out over and over again by key industry figures and analysts.

1. Severe and permanent harm to US semiconductor interests. The semiconductor association (representing over 1,000 US companies) wrote to the White House warning of the perils. Lost revenues which are needed for future R&D. The Pentagon even briefly stepped in to halt a Trump executive order - on national security grounds. The irony!

2. De-americanisation. Again this is ironic. To reduce the financial impact of the 'sanctions' on US companies, licences would be required. This led to complaints from sovereign nations who were impacted by restrictions imposed on them because their products just happened to contain US technology elements. To make matters worse, in one of the more recent rounds of restrictions, those allied sovereign nations were not even notified of the new restrictions. That anger floated to the surface as companies complained that US companies had an unfair advantage through licences. 'America First!'. Many analysts believe that De-americanisation is currently underway to free non-American companies from the shackles of US weaponised sanctions. Most estimates put the process as taking around 5 years from design change, testing and implementation. Around 2024.

3. Chinese retaliation. China has bided it's time so far. It hasn't really used its sanctions busting laws and other moves (raw material restrictions, Micron etc) have not been very intense. That could change at any moment and Apple is likely a key candidate for some China love.

4. Chinese Betterment. Far from slowing Chinese progress down, sanctions have turbo charged the entire Chinese semiconductor industry, pushing it ever more closely towards self sufficiency. That was always the goal anyway (just like the EU). It will just be pushed harder. Huawei is the nexus of basically everything. For every single restriction imposed on it, measures have been initiated to overcome them. It has invested in companies across the entire chip manufacturing process. Literally every single step and is pushing out patents as its R&D setup works overtime. We are talking lithography, photoresist, etching, EDA, packaging etc.

China has just announced a new 40 billion dollar plan dedicated to realising its goals. It doesn't matter just how far away they are from final products. The point is that, as a result of sanctions and technology weaponisation it will all happen far, far faster than anyone ever imagined.

It won't be on 'Trump's watch' but he might have to watch everything play out from his cell in the not too distant future.

I'm sure a fair amount of moderates are regretting letting the Hawks do so much damage but the genie is out of the bottle now and there's no getting it back in. That ship sailed, the bullet has been fired. The damage has been done.

The BRICS and DSR will surely be waiting to lap up whatever non-US technology starts rolling out.

India, China pump up the patriotism to celebrate local hardware manufacturing wins

The reactions to sanctions

Just a tiny smattering of quotes from people who actually know what they are talking about (unlike the Trump and Biden administrations):

"I believe that export controls are not the right way to manage your economic risks if you have determined that there is an economic risk. If you close China from access to technology, that will also cost non-Chinese economies a lot of jobs and a lot of income."

Peter Wennink, CEO of ASML

"Losing access to the China market will cut the revenues of U.S. semiconductor companies. That would lower investment into research and development that can threaten these companies’ market leadership or, at worst, survival. Losing such a large market might even spark a new global chip shortage, as companies scale back investment, threatening both the U.S. and global economy."

Rakesh Kumar: Professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering department at the University of Illinois

"... over the long-term, restrictions prohibiting the sale of our data centre GPUs to China, if implemented, will result in a permanent loss of an opportunity for the US industry to compete and lead in one of the world’s largest markets"

Colette Kress (Nvidia chief financial officer)

"If [Washington] continues to try to punish other nations and to pass bills and implement ‘America First’ policies in an unpredictable manner, other countries could form an alliance against the US"

Yang Hyang-ja (South Korean politician, former Samsung Executive)

"Repeated steps… to impose overly broad, ambiguous, and at times unilateral restrictions risk diminishing the US semiconductor industry’s competitiveness, disrupting supply chains, causing significant market uncertainty, and prompting continued escalatory retaliation by China"

SIA (Semiconductor Industry of America)

And when China imposed restrictions on Micron, we got this as reported by the Financial Times:

The US Commerce Department has said it firmly opposed the restrictions that “have no basis in fact.”

Laughable in the extreme!

This from the same department that, willy nilly, slaps undefinable 'national security' labels on anything and everything to justify its unilateral, extraterritorial sanctions on Chinese companies and bullying tactics on allies.

How is Huawei shipping phones with Google Mobile Services, a national security threat?

The only question now is how long it will take the US to finally realise that yes, it shot a silver bullet, but it is flying straight into its very own head.

Will they react in time to dodge it?

No premium phones in recent years?

Where did you get the idea that they haven't released premium phones in recent years?

MATE SERIES

2020

Huawei P40

Huawei P40 Pro

Huawei P40 Pro+

Huawei Mate Xs

Huawei Mate 30E Pro 5G

Huawei Mate 40

Huawei Mate 40 Pro

Huawei Mate 40 Pro+

Huawei Mate 40 RS Porsche Design

2021

Huawei P50

Huawei P50E

Huawei P50 Pro

Huawei P50 Pocket

Huawei Mate X2

2022

Huawei Mate Xs 2

Huawei Mate 50

Huawei Mate 50E

Huawei Mate 50 Pro

Huawei Mate 50 RS Porsche Design

2023

Huawei P60

Huawei P60 Art

Huawei P60 Pro

Huawei Mate X3

Huawei Mate 60

Huawei Mate 60 Pro

They skipped a P series launch in 2022 but other than that they kept producing stellar premium phones (just without 5G) until this Mate 60 Pro release, which will definitely have been detected on the US sphincter scale.

Huawei has successfully de-Americanised over 13,000 components, invested in over 70 chipset production software tools and completely re-jigged its supply chain.

This product, albeit with it's current limitations, is a declaration of intent.

If they begin making their advances available to third parties (and they will) the US stands to lose billions in the process.

It is estimated that LAM Research alone stands to lose around 2.5 billion US dollars.

Huawei reportedly building 'secret' semiconductor fabs

'Secret'?

Huawei's breadcrumb trails are pretty easy to follow, if you really want to follow them, and the admission by SIA that it based its claims on publicly available data (which no doubt included a slice or two of speculation) shoots a big hole into the 'secret' aspect of all this.

Huawei, like Apple, Google, Microsoft and practically every other tech company on the planet does have labs, research centres and the like which contain 'secret' products etc but you can't keep mass production sites secret at all when the products are destined for the consumer industry.

The manufacturing 'grey' market for some manufacturing tools (hardware and software) has always existed. Getting things from that market or 'second hand' is commonplace across all industries, too.

Let's not forget that both China and the EU have 'sanctions busting' laws. AFAIK, China has only used those once since sanctions began but if a Chinese company can legally purchase US technology, Chinese law makes it very difficult for them to not be able to sell it on within China.

The US is well aware of this.

As for Huawei's plans, well logically they don't advertise them and, under the current circumstances, they even go out of their way to 'openly' keep some things 'secret'. That's why all the circuit boards and chips on show at MWC2023 were taped over or eliminated.

What are they doing exactly with regards to chip manufacturing?

No one on the outside knows officially, but it is clear they have no alternative but to become vertical in chip production as soon as possible.

They will do that through their own resources, government funding, common strategies with universities and by investing in local technology companies and pushing them to improve their products.

The 5G BAW-filter 'choke point' is a rumoured clasic example of this.

The US openly spoke of destroying Huawei. It used the term 'choke' on many occasions.

However, It looks like it is the entire US semiconductor industry will end up choking on the sanctions in the longer term.

Arm reveals just how vulnerable it is to trade war with China

Re: Between morphng US regulations and RISC-V

One of the top patent filers in the US is, wait for it, Huawei.

It's the same in the EU and worldwide.

Their employees (half of whom are directly employed in R&D, engineering etc) are obviously cooking a lot of their own stuff and seeing as it is class leading in so many areas, it begs the question, who are they stealing from?

I know Huawei isn't China but the numbers still hold up.

China cooks covert chips, recruits global geeks to dodge US restrictions

Re: Engineers from other nations?

Huawei has over 20 Research Centres worldwide.

Mathematics research in France, Turkey and Russia (that last one is moving out of Russia at some point due to the geopolitical climate)

Imaging science in Finland.

RF in Canada.

Etc.

Obviously within China it's mostly Chinese but not limited to Chinese.

Huawei has been on a worldwide recruiting spree since sanctions kicked in. If you are truly talented in your field you can expect to earn around double the industry salary.

Re: Unexpected consequence ?

I will wager that long before twenty years are up EUV will not be necessary.

I wonder how far away we are from mass produced non-silicon based chips?

In any case, it is claimed that Huawei or a Chinese research institute has already filed patents for a breakthrough in lithography.

The question is whether that can be brought to market as a product at some point.

I'd say a definite 'yes' with so much funding being ploughed into the Chinese industry and again, in well under twenty years.

Re: Unexpected consequence ?

There are no unintended consequences here.

Ironically, it was SIA which wrote to the White House on several occasions warning of the damage a ban on Huawei would cause to its members.

Up to the first year of sanctions, Huawei was pumping billions into US semi conductor firms which, in turn, used those revenues to fund R&D for future advances.

So, losing revenues was bad, but what would be worse was 'de-Americanisation' by foreign firms which were suddenly seeing their own products being affected by the 'weaponisation' of US technology. That process is already underway and will also impact US interests.

By the way, SIA was not alone in warning the US to tread carefully with any sanctions. ASML has been very vocal and recently a high ranking South Korean official went on record as saying it shouldn't be put between a rock and a hard place as a result of US unilateral sanctions.

On top of that it was logical that Huawei, and all other affected Chinese firms, would have to 'brew their own' to be able to move forward. They have no alternative.

Huawei was clear on this and said it would take between two and three years to get US technology out of its systems.

They have already erradicated US technology from over 13,000 components.

They also invested in over 40 companies specialising in specific semi conductor related companies.

They upped R&D too. Patent filings a plenty.

One American EDA company executive even said he would rather Huawei used their tools by cracking them than see Huawei create competing tools.

Well, in both software and hardware and different platforms and industries, Huawei is going self sufficient and literally everyone (with perhaps the exception of Trump & Co) saw it coming.

EDA, chip packaging, photoresist, lithography...

The only difference is that it's now coming far faster than it otherwise would have - because of sanctions!

On a wider note China (as a whole) now has 7nm capacity. It might be low yield and more expensive but the US doesn't have any native 7nm capacity to call it's own. And if China were to refocus all its capacity (it won't) on 7nm, it's capacity would outstrip that of TSMC and Samsung - combined!

They went from 14nm to 7nm in two years,too.

SIA probably had a collective bed wetting episode after TechInsights published their report.

Of course the vast majority of chips used worldwide are not even produced on nodes anywhere near the cutting edge so China will be happy to improve yields and overall capacity on older nodes in the short term.

But we all know where they're heading.

As for Huawei in particular, my guess is that before year end they will announce a chip stacked solution on a flagship-like phone.

That will be another major step for them.

Unrelated or not, Qualcomm has recently said they expect no further 'material revenue' from Huawei.

I suspect something is in the pipe.

Huawei claims it’s ready to ship entire 5.5G networks – whatever they are – in 2024

No Surprises here

Huawei has been using the 5.5G nomenclature to reference the next speed bump for 5G for some time now. MWC2023 (Barcelona) was full of it.

It is just their way to reference use cases which require 10 Gbit/s transfers.

https://www.huawei.com/en/news/2023/2/mwc2023-fivepointfiveg

They did exactly the same thing with '4.5G'.

Huawei could be banned from 5G networks across the EU

Details?

"Huawei has been slapped hard by US-led sanctions against the company, which hit it in the pocket, with profits dropping by 46 percent in the first quarter of 2023 when compared with the end of last year."

I believe that is the case numerically but weren't revenues actually slightly up for the period?

There was a gigantic upsurge in revenues (approx $15B) with the sale of Honor which obviously creates a temporary distortion across the board.

Are the figures you are referring to partly a result of the subsequent adjustment of that one off transaction?

Malaysia goes its own Huawei, won't ban Chinese vendor from 5G network

The Bigger Picture

The US claims of 'national security' threats have never stood up to scrutiny. They are in fact quite ridiculous.

Internet data travels the world through gigantic fibre optic pipelines. Many of those are built, deployed and managed by Huawei and its partners or subsidiaries. Thousands upon thousands of kilometres. We all know that in case of a major worldwide conflict those lines will be cut. Until such a moment happens, let's look for cases of Huawei siphoning off huge chunks of internet transport data to China.

We may look until the end of time for any such evidence. None has been found in the last 35 years and Huawei now handles around a third of the world's ICT transport needs.

Is that surprising?

Of course it isn't!

The first sign of any such abuse (with evidence to support) would spell Huawei's instant and utter death. It would be the end. Is there a single reason for them to run that risk? Nope and believe me, if the US had any, it would just sit on it.

Government actors are another story but here, it is the US, with its habit of falling foul to some of the most gigantic and embarrassing leaks in modern history, that is carrying a huge 'Never trust us for anything' banner.

You can argue that, as a sovereign state it can do whatever it pleases with regards to China, just as China has done the same but we know what the US has been up to. We know about Operation Shotgiant. We know about Crypto AG.

But still, within US borders it's their country and their rules.

What is weird is that you can't buy a Huawei phone easily within the US for national security reasons but you can buy one from other Chinese vendors. Why? Isn't the Chinese government digging into all Chinese tech companies? That's the US claim, at least.

Huawei cannot ship phones with US 5G components but can buy 5nm processors from US companies. Does that make any national security sense? Nope.

The reason is not national security. The reason is protectionism because the US woke up with a jolt to Chinese advances in just about every area of modern technology and the supply lines to bring that technology to market.

The US just didn't see the importance of 5G until it was far too late and by then a lunatic had already taken over the asylum.

The ball was set rolling, and hawk after hawk walked up to the mic in Congress and any other political stage willing to give them a voice, to tell us how bad Huawei and the Chinese government was.

Trump, Barr, Rubio, Pence et al. All utterly clueless, as made clear by some of the most preposterous technology proposals ever made, in an effort to stop China from advancing.

Ironically, at the very same time, the US was demanding more trade from China.

Having failed in their ultimate goals, and in spite of knee-capping homegrown US tech interests in the process (just listen to what the CEO of Nvidia had to say on that this week), it turned its attention to sovereign nations and tried the age old tactic of pressganging. Using government bullying to push sovereign governments to impose limits on their own commercial interests via private or public companies, which invariably involve China as a major revenue source.

The usual 'it's us or them' rhetoric. Where have we heard that before?

So now we see, over and over again, that any international advance by Huawei or China is swiftly met by the sending of a US delegation of loons to throw some threats around.

Johnson buckled. Australia got itself in a right royal mess. Canada the same but they both got screwed for different reasons in the end. Just look at the Auckus Nuclear Submarine deal.

That's how the US does business. By pulling the rug out from underneath supposed allies to support its own cause. Expect Macron or who follows him to poke a finger up the collective US/UK/Australia ass for that mess.

At the earliest opportunity Macron was in China.

Was the US behind Nord Stream 2's sabotage? Nobody knows but Scholtz took no time to visit China either (with the CEOs of major German companies filing in behind him).

The CEO of Vodafone UK made it clear four years ago that eliminating Huawei from UK 5G networks (leaving just two major suppliers) would distort competition, increase prices and slow down the 5G roll out in the UK.

That in turn would put a stick in the spokes of the economic fruits to be had from 5G as part of the digital industrial revolution.

That applies to all nations that decide to follow US 'orders'.

There are now claims (Nikkei) that the Huawei ban has cost industry over one hundred billion US dollars around the world.

If Malaysia sticks two fingers up to the US, then that is admirable if they want to take their own decisions. Let them do it. Shame on Boris for not doing the same.

The middle east, parts of Africa and Latin America are doing just that.

Parallel to all this (and a direct consequence of US policy decisions) we may start to see the de-Americanisation of technology to 'free' companies from weaponised, extra-territorial sanctions of the US. That boomerang will be back.

Original estimates put the task at around five years. Counting from 2019, we may be seeing non-Chinese companies completely removing any remnants of US origin technology to free themselves of the shackles of unilateral sanctions.

Of course, the Chinese started that process years ago and have only accelerated efforts since then.

Rumours claim Huawei will be releasing updates to it's entire chip line in the second half of this year. That's Kunpeng, Tiangang, Kirin, and Ascend among others. The company has, in a rather round about way, denied the rumours so we'll have to wait and see.

In AI, Huawei's Pangu is making great strides with Pangu-Σ model already reaching the trillion parameter milestone (and on older Ascend 910 clusters).

Pangu was also used in the development of Drug X, currently undergoing clinical trials.

"untrusted suppliers". Now if that designation were to be the result of a concerted effort by industry experts based on hard data and agreed through consensus, it might carry some weight.

As it stands though, that just isn't the case. It's a unilateral designation created by one country which is quite literally imposed on 'allies' and which is itself quite literally running scared of China taking the upper hand in key technology domains.

"Dirty networks", "untrusted suppliers", "national security". There is a label for everything and none of it has ever stood up to scrutiny.

A bit of pushback by sovereign nations is almost equivalent to an "up yours" from those who are just fed up with US antics which ultimately only have its own interests at stake.

I see a bluff being called by some nations.

China bans Micron products after security review finds unspecified flaws

Re: If they really wanted to make a point

Apple is on the list of targets simply because it would do great harm to US interests both inside and outside China.

As a ir-for-tat response, it's a lever waiting to be pulled.

However, it is known that Apple and the Chinese government had a multi billion dollar 'trade' agreement in place which I believe expired after the US implemented sanctions. That deal alone would have given Apple some protection. The question has to be 'was it renewed?'.

If not, Apple is probably sweating things out and hoping the lever is a last resort option.

As the US doubles down on its efforts to 'choke' and 'destroy' Chinese technological advancement (words taken from US officials' speeches) via sanctions and bullying allies, the breaking point of Chinese patience comes nearer.

This move with Micron is simply another step on that road.

Telcos need another $3B in Uncle Sam's cash to remove Chinese network kit, says FCC

Re: Oh dear!

This is wrong. Open, standards based, interoperable communications are a plus, not a negative.

What we don't want is an 'us vs them' solution.

The so called 'threat' of Chinese 'intervention' is identical to the threat from anyone else.

All the talk of back doors or kill switches is pure nonsense. You want disruption? Cut power supplies. Cut undersea cables. Block satellite access. All of those 'dirty' options are open to everyone. Nord Stream 2 is an example.

The carriers no there networks. They know what is going where. They also have physical access to it.

No other ICT vendor has its equipment scrutinised like Huawei. Literally no one.

The 'us vs them' idea only exists because the US dropped the ball on ICT and has no native player on the field. The resulting logic is that the field must be dug up. If Qualcomm or anyone else from the US had influence over the world's ICT infrastructure, you can bet your last dollar that the US would be all for it.

That is the reality.

5G is MASSIVE and is just the start. Things won't really take off until 5.5G (just around the corner) but the uses and tools being developed and deployed now (on 5G) represent the groundwork for future plans.

This is an industrial revolution and its happening now. Industry is reaping the rewards and China (with 5G already widely deployed) is quite far ahead on IoT, industrial IoT, smart manufacturing, smart mining, ports, airport, agriculture. You name it, China is using 5G to improve efficiencies.

Next steps are obviously autonomous driving (already deployed at ports, mine's, airports, farms etc), V2X, XR...

The US likes to see itself as technology leader and it is, but it is also a laggard in many areas. ICT is one of them. There is no real competition among carriers in the home market. Things stagnate as a result. 'Simple' things like payments are another. It took over a decade to get chip EMV into the US market. High speed rail? Nope.

The US is so far behind in some areas but, in part, that is understandable. Manufacturing for example. Does anyone really think China won't be the beacon to follow there? V2X? Well, that authoritarian government will actually get things done far, far faster than any US initiative. And when autonomous cars (to whatever level) start populating that ICT-laden road infrastructure, they will export the model (and the cars, built in smart factories) to all those 150+ developing countries on the BRI (and the digital equivalent).

ZE-IoT will make the network itself a sensor.

You can now begin to see why the US wants to choke the life out of Chinese technology interests, but believe me, ICT security has nothing to do with it.

It will threaten, bully and clobber anyone it has influence over but it will not work. Pushback, especially in the Arab world and Africa has already begun. Latin America is following suit.

Then there is the BRICS situation.

Mid-to-long term, things aren't looking great for the US but it only has itself to blame.

The EU is quietly moving to reduce its dependency on US technology. Ironically, in terms of some strategic dependencies, the US is actually far, far more dependent on EU products than the other way around. Google EU Strategic Dependencies and you may turn up a document that is currently WiP.

The situation with Russia obviously got out of hand but there is no doubt that China will benefit from that too. That is a clear example of US led foreign policy falling flat but that's another story.

Re: Oh dear!

I understand the 'what if' line but it doesn't make any sense.

These are international standards and are interoperable.

In over 30 years nothing of the kind has ever happened. Even with Huawei pumping international data over thousands of km of undersea cables.

Oh dear!

Something telling.

Despite huge efforts by the US administration, zero evidence to support the 'untrusted' claims has ever been produced. It's comical.

It even went the extra mile and re-opened previously settled civil cases just to have something to wave around.

When the Germans asked for evidence of a 'smoking gun' they were told none was necessary. That resulted in some rather terse commentary from some German officials.

3,4 and 5G are standards based and certified. Three decades of presence in world ICT infrastructure has not revealed any deliberate wrongdoing.

Huawei offered to licence it's entire 5G stack to any US entity or consortium that might have been interested. Source code. The whole thing.

Just so the US would be able to compete.

That offer was refused because this isn't about 'competition' in a classic sense. It's about hegemony, control and influence.

The US got caught with its pants down on 5G and its importance. It literally entered panic mode and decided to totally break global supply chains in an effort to derail China's progress.

The main target had to be the national champion: Huawei.

It is now simply lashing out and bullying allies with direct and indirect threats. When the UK refused to ban Huawei, the US decided to escalate sanctions to the point that the UK doubted that Huawei would be able to deliver it's products. It went ahead with more extraterritorial sanctions that had a direct impact on several companies in sovereign nations. All without consultation of any kind.

It is the US that has shown it cannot be trusted and that is the news that few want to speak about openly. The EU processor initiative was born out of a desperate need to reduce dependecy on US origin technology that can (and is) weaponised at will and without warning.

US chipmakers don't want to be locked out of industry's biggest market: China

Only a tiny, tiny fraction of the world's semiconductor output is on cutting edge nodes.

SIA wrote to the White House a few years ago warning that US interests would be impaired by restrictions on China. The Pentagon even stepped in on one occasion to delay a Trump Executive order on restrictions.

The Hawks won out in the end and as a result, billions were lost in revenues from Chinese companies. 11 billion from Huawei alone in one year. Those were revenues that would have formed part of future R&D efforts from US companies.

Now, the boot is firmly on the other foot. Chinese companies (and many western companies) are 'de-Americanising' their production lines and technologies to free them from the long arm of US extraterritorial (and unilateral) sanctions. For every ban, a non-US alternative is being sought. Huawei has made huge advances over the last three years.

New competitors to US interests are spawning at an accelerated rate. Where US companies once enjoyed monopolies, new competitors are arriving. Very little of those 11 billion dollars from Huawei would ever go back to US companies if sanctions were lifted. The genie is out of the bottle. Money is being ploughed into non-US interests.

Huawei is looking at RISC-V, chiplets and chip stacking and has made several breakthroughs already. Some confirmed and others rumoured. The chipstacking breakthrough will very probably lead to non-cutting edge fabrication of very competitive chips at far lower prices. Just a little less bang for far less buck. That could have serious repercussions on the market. Corning glass was replaced by Kunlun etc.

That the US wanted to have its cake and eat it isn't a surprise. That they totally screwed up at getting there is no surprise either.

No matter what the predictions were on how long it would take China to catch up in certain areas, the best guess now would be to halve them.

West warns Malaysia to keep Huawei out of 5G networks

"Washington ordered a halt on all American technology exports to Huawei as part of its ban on the sales of US goods to Chinese organizations earlier this year, which has deprived the company of components produced by leading technology suppliers such as telecoms chipmaker Qualcomm."

I think that what you mean is certain US technology (not all) and even then exports are possible once a licence is obtained.

That's why Qualcomm is supplying telecom gear to Huawei right now, just without 5G.

Re: The new colonialism

Absolutely! Some African countries have publicly pushed back against US interference.

The whole notion of 'clean' networks and 'trusted' suppliers is pure hogwash.

Is there anything more untrustworthy and dirty than a network under US control. Words like PRISM, Shotgiant and CryptoAG immediately spring to mind.

5G is a standard. An interoperable standard. At some point data from any carrier could flow over Huawei gear. It's been that way for decades and there has not been a single major breach. Huawei has laid and manages thousands of km of undersea cabling. The US command communications in Afghanistan ran over Huawei equipment.

That, in spite of Huawei having to deal with over a million intrusion attempts per day.

US sanctions cut Huawei profits by half in first quarter

Apple would be critically damaged by any loss of access to the Chinese market.

If there was no demand and Huawei phones weren't competitive, how did they become the world's number one vendor of handsets at the beginning of 2020? Without access to one of the world's largest markets.

The AT&T deal would have seen Huawei phones offered by a major carrier. Back then it was the key to national distribution.

"The US isn't exactly building its own Great Firewall, but Huawei shouldn't be shocked if it finds itself deprived of another ingress route into the US economy, or if its economic woes continue until that beefed-up R&D budget is able to deliver."

Of course, the US shouldn't be surprised if China deprives Apple of an ingress route into the Chinese economy by banning the sale of iPhones there. After all, that is what the US did to China in 2017.

Huawei became a behemoth in smartphone terms without access to one of the world's biggest smartphone markets. How would Apple do without access to China.

That particular card hasn't been played by China yet.

These results seem to show a turnaround with revenues slightly up in spite of US efforts to destroy the company and huge R&D investments.

'De-Americanisation' is now fully underway at Huawei and very probably at key international suppliers who have been strangled by what many consider now to be 'toxic' US IP as it was weaponised by the Administration.

V

Seagate hit with $300m penalty for selling sanctioned storage to Huawei

Re: Its a crapshoot

Extraterritorial sanctions that are unilaterally imposed put you on a very slippery slope.

Both the EU and China have anti-sanctions legislation in place.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01996R2271-20180807

The EU has used this type of legislation in the past to protect EU companies.

China has yet to do so but has reminded the world that the legislation exists and it will use it when the time comes. So far it has shown restraint.

Huawei replaces ERP with homebrew effort, claims it’s perfect and shows company will thrive despite sanctions

Re: Sure, with stolen tech

"indistinguishable AOSP"

This is completely untrue and you are possibly taking your information from somewhere like the infamous ARS hitjob piece.

The phone and tablet versions of HarmonyOS are based off of AOSP but have notable changes in areas like the network stack.

Non-phone/tablet versions of HarmonyOS run off different kernels and contain over a thousand modules of self developed code. Not a trace of AOSP. But let's not forget Huawei contributes to that too. It is a major open source contributor. One of the latest additions to Android file system options was developed by Huawei.

Also Huawei has brought many industry firsts to market so who are they stealing from? Could it have something to do with the billions it's ploughs into R&D every year? The fact that it remains one of the world's top patent filers?

Re: The real accomplishment here

Something similar happened with EDA tools. One off the record comment from a US EDA tool manufacturer said they would rather someone cracked their licencing code system than have a company like Huawei forced to brew their own solution and end up as a direct competitor in the EDA market.