"[US] Politicians have expressed national security concerns... Huawei has ties to the authoritarian Chinese government, and -- in theory -- its involvement in 5G could be used to make it easier for China to infiltrate foreign networks."
Unsurprisingly hypocritical. We made MS Windows a global standard with backdoors. I'm sure Apple and Google have been handed down gag orders for backdoors as well.
FUD. There aren’t backdoors in iOS or macOS, and Cook has said publicly that they’d never do this. He’s barred from lying, and it would destroy their reputation when it came out. And with all the scrutiny on Apple software, it would come out. If it were true, which it isn’t.
Um sure, and btw: "Despite the appearance of conflict between Apple and U.S. law enforcement, the company is not only cooperating in many search requests but actually training the FBI and other police forces."
You'll never hear about backdoors from Apple or the agencies, that's why they call them gag orders. Yahoo tried to go against the agencies' fiber and they were hit with penalties that would have Yahoo bankrupt in days.
"[US] Politicians have expressed national security concerns... Huawei has ties to the authoritarian Chinese government, and -- in theory -- its involvement in 5G could be used to make it easier for China to infiltrate foreign networks."
Unsurprisingly hypocritical. We made MS Windows a global standard with backdoors. I'm sure Apple and Google have been handed down gag orders for backdoors as well.
FUD. There aren’t backdoors in iOS or macOS, and Cook has said publicly that they’d never do this. He’s barred from lying, and it would destroy their reputation when it came out. And with all the scrutiny on Apple software, it would come out. If it were true, which it isn’t.
Isn't exactly the same true for Huawei?
Worse in fact.
Apple is only involved in the handset business. Huawei has divisions in far more communications areas including submarine communications deployment.
If being found to have back doors would destroy Apple's reputation, what would it do to Huawei? Far more damage. Right into its core business.
This US 'fear' has been going on for years now without any evidence to back it up.
Huawei has denied everything that it has been singled out for. The US should put something tangible on the table or things will start to stink of protectionism and it might not be long before they get called out or China starts to take its own measures.
AT&T already does business with Huawei in places like Mexico and Huawei already does massive business in most of the rest of the world, including the UK. In that case the UK government has a special unit with deep access to Huawei equipment.
"Apple is only involved in the handset business" would be news to Apple.
Um sure, and btw: "Despite the appearance of conflict between Apple and U.S. law enforcement, the company is not only cooperating in many search requests but actually training the FBI and other police forces."
You really didn't either read, or if you did, didn't bother to quote, the sentence following that, did you? Here, let me help: It says, "The company doesn't train police on cracking product security."
You'll never hear about backdoors from Apple or the agencies, that's why they call them gag orders. Yahoo tried to go against the agencies' fiber and they were hit with penalties that would have Yahoo bankrupt in days.
Can someone please explain the phrases "backdoor" versus "cooperating in many search requests... [and] training FBI and other police forces..." to @bloggerblog? I am gobsmacked.
(And thanks for the laugh, with this ludicrous line: "Yahoo ... were hit with penalties that would have Yahoo bankrupt in days." Yeah, that's the reason Yahoo failed, sure. Man, from where do these folks crawl out...)
"[US] Politicians have expressed national security concerns... Huawei has ties to the authoritarian Chinese government, and -- in theory -- its involvement in 5G could be used to make it easier for China to infiltrate foreign networks."
Unsurprisingly hypocritical. We made MS Windows a global standard with backdoors. I'm sure Apple and Google have been handed down gag orders for backdoors as well.
FUD. There aren’t backdoors in iOS or macOS, and Cook has said publicly that they’d never do this. He’s barred from lying, and it would destroy their reputation when it came out. And with all the scrutiny on Apple software, it would come out. If it were true, which it isn’t.
Isn't exactly the same true for Huawei?
Worse in fact.
Apple is only involved in the handset business. Huawei has divisions in far more communications areas including submarine communications deployment.
If being found to have back doors would destroy Apple's reputation, what would it do to Huawei? Far more damage. Right into its core business.
This US 'fear' has been going on for years now without any evidence to back it up.
Huawei has denied everything that it has been singled out for. The US should put something tangible on the table or things will start to stink of protectionism and it might not be long before they get called out or China starts to take its own measures.
AT&T already does business with Huawei in places like Mexico and Huawei already does massive business in most of the rest of the world, including the UK. In that case the UK government has a special unit with deep access to Huawei equipment.
"Apple is only involved in the handset business" would be news to Apple.
"[US] Politicians have expressed national security concerns... Huawei has ties to the authoritarian Chinese government, and -- in theory -- its involvement in 5G could be used to make it easier for China to infiltrate foreign networks."
Unsurprisingly hypocritical. We made MS Windows a global standard with backdoors. I'm sure Apple and Google have been handed down gag orders for backdoors as well.
FUD. There aren’t backdoors in iOS or macOS, and Cook has said publicly that they’d never do this. He’s barred from lying, and it would destroy their reputation when it came out. And with all the scrutiny on Apple software, it would come out. If it were true, which it isn’t.
Isn't exactly the same true for Huawei?
Worse in fact.
Apple is only involved in the handset business. Huawei has divisions in far more communications areas including submarine communications deployment.
If being found to have back doors would destroy Apple's reputation, what would it do to Huawei? Far more damage. Right into its core business.
This US 'fear' has been going on for years now without any evidence to back it up.
Huawei has denied everything that it has been singled out for. The US should put something tangible on the table or things will start to stink of protectionism and it might not be long before they get called out or China starts to take its own measures.
AT&T already does business with Huawei in places like Mexico and Huawei already does massive business in most of the rest of the world, including the UK. In that case the UK government has a special unit with deep access to Huawei equipment.
"Apple is only involved in the handset business" would be news to Apple.
Care to expand?
Apple's income is somewhere around 65% dependent on the iPhone, so for a $900 B company capitalization, that's something like $315 B in other business, easily in the top 20 companies by capitalization. But, yeah, Apple isn't a telecom company. The WTO is there for such things.
Also, Huawei being involved in submarine communications probably hurts them in this particular instance. Me, I wouldn't have brought that up.
Why is congress fighting Huawei, they say that China could spy through the phones? Seems to be just anticompetitive from this article.
Read the source links. They cited national security concerns, not competition concerns. Note that they aren’t saying the same about S. Korean phone makers like Samsung, just China’s Huawei.
If we say that secret national security concerns aren’t legit here, then we need to say it everywhere the govt cites it, including the undisclosed evidence that russia colluded (proof was never given to the public, just a “trust us” claim). So where do we draw the line?
The US government (through different committees, bills, pressure etc) accuses Huawei of being a threat to national security and can't present anything to substantiate the claims.
Then the US government's NSA gets found out for doing exactly what it's campaigning to protect against (operation Shotgiant). Oh dear, there's egg on your face if ever there was.
It is far too late to do anything about Samsung. They are already in.
If the Huawei threat were so great they would get in anyway, compromising other people's equipment to do so.
The current situation has a ring of paranoia and protectionism to it and the only way to set things straight is by supporting the claims with something tangible.
There's plenty of evidence. Including from other countries around the world. Read/look up if you're interested to learn more.
Plenty of evidence? The NYT article made Huawei's stance perfectly clear.
Was the 'evidence' ever presented to the FBI as stated? What happened then?
Can you see the irony in this snippet:
"But Mr. Rogers said the companies had been told to tell the Chinese to “stop hacking” into American companies and infrastructure if they wanted to do business in the United States."
While they were telling the Chinese to 'stop hacking', the NSA was doing just that to Huawei!
There's plenty of evidence. Including from other countries around the world. Read/look up if you're interested to learn more.
Plenty of evidence? The NYT article made Huawei's stance perfectly clear.
Was the 'evidence' ever presented to the FBI as stated? What happened then?
Can you see the irony in this snippet:
"But Mr. Rogers said the companies had been told to tell the Chinese to “stop hacking” into American companies and infrastructure if they wanted to do business in the United States."
While they were telling the Chinese to 'stop hacking', the NSA was doing just that to Huawei!
I'll just repeat my last para from before. "There's plenty of evidence. Including from other countries around the world.Read/look up if you're interested to learn more."
It's really up to you. That's assuming you're you're interested in actual facts. I am not going to bother to research on behalf of those who'd like to remain ignorant.
"[US] Politicians have expressed national security concerns... Huawei has ties to the authoritarian Chinese government, and -- in theory -- its involvement in 5G could be used to make it easier for China to infiltrate foreign networks."
Unsurprisingly hypocritical. We made MS Windows a global standard with backdoors. I'm sure Apple and Google have been handed down gag orders for backdoors as well.
Wrong. They are not Blackfoot. They are unintentional security hole due to incompetence.
"[US] Politicians have expressed national security concerns... Huawei has ties to the authoritarian Chinese government, and -- in theory -- its involvement in 5G could be used to make it easier for China to infiltrate foreign networks."
Unsurprisingly hypocritical. We made MS Windows a global standard with backdoors. I'm sure Apple and Google have been handed down gag orders for backdoors as well.
FUD. There aren’t backdoors in iOS or macOS, and Cook has said publicly that they’d never do this. He’s barred from lying, and it would destroy their reputation when it came out. And with all the scrutiny on Apple software, it would come out. If it were true, which it isn’t.
Isn't exactly the same true for Huawei?
Worse in fact.
Apple is only involved in the handset business. Huawei has divisions in far more communications areas including submarine communications deployment.
If being found to have back doors would destroy Apple's reputation, what would it do to Huawei? Far more damage. Right into its core business.
This US 'fear' has been going on for years now without any evidence to back it up.
Huawei has denied everything that it has been singled out for. The US should put something tangible on the table or things will start to stink of protectionism and it might not be long before they get called out or China starts to take its own measures.
AT&T already does business with Huawei in places like Mexico and Huawei already does massive business in most of the rest of the world, including the UK. In that case the UK government has a special unit with deep access to Huawei equipment.
"Apple is only involved in the handset business" would be news to Apple.
Care to expand?
Apple's income is somewhere around 65% dependent on the iPhone, so for a $900 B company capitalization, that's something like $315 B in other business, easily in the top 20 companies by capitalization. But, yeah, Apple isn't a telecom company. The WTO is there for such things.
Also, Huawei being involved in submarine communications probably hurts them in this particular instance. Me, I wouldn't have brought that up.
Exactly. Telecommunications. This article is about that. Apple is only involved in handsets.
Huawei is quite transparent in its activities. Its R&D centres are not hidden in China but distributed worldwide and collaborating with all manner of organisations.
TBH it's crazy to come out with 5G towers when people can't get a consistent signal on 4G LTE. Phone companies couldn't deliver 5 bars on 4G, now it's only showing a possible of 4 bars on 4G to make you think you're getting the full signal. It's unethical to push tech to the next level if you haven't mastered the one you're currently on yet.
There's plenty of evidence. Including from other countries around the world. Read/look up if you're interested to learn more.
Plenty of evidence? The NYT article made Huawei's stance perfectly clear.
Was the 'evidence' ever presented to the FBI as stated? What happened then?
Can you see the irony in this snippet:
"But Mr. Rogers said the companies had been told to tell the Chinese to “stop hacking” into American companies and infrastructure if they wanted to do business in the United States."
While they were telling the Chinese to 'stop hacking', the NSA was doing just that to Huawei!
I'll just repeat my last para from before. "There's plenty of evidence. Including from other countries around the world.Read/look up if you're interested to learn more."
It's really up to you. That's assuming you're you're interested in actual facts. I am not going to bother to research on behalf of those who'd like to remain ignorant.
I read a lot of committee .pdfs years ago. Huawei says what it says. Documents were supposedly going to be handed over to the FBI (for criminal charges to be made or further investigation?) I haven't seen any charges.
On the other hand, the activities of the NSA were laid bare by Snowden, much to the embarrassment of the US government.
Today, if there were anything solid to go on, I think it would be used to justify what is happening with regards to Chinese activity in the US.
Speaking as a foreigner, if I had to choose either a US company or a Chinese company having the theoretical power of beng of in a position to manipulate or compromise wireless networks, I’d pick the yanks. Just sayin’. There is no equivalence here.
The perfect way to encourage Huawei and China to exploit 5G technology in order to advance state sponsored spying is to exclude them from 5G standardization activities. This would remove any expectations of transparency from Huawei's 5G development activities. Every single thing that these US politicians say about Huawei and the Chinese government could be said about any US company and the US government (CIA, NSA, DHS, DoD, etc.). Authoritarianism is in the eye of the beholder.
There's plenty of evidence. Including from other countries around the world. Read/look up if you're interested to learn more.
Plenty of evidence? The NYT article made Huawei's stance perfectly clear.
Was the 'evidence' ever presented to the FBI as stated? What happened then?
Can you see the irony in this snippet:
"But Mr. Rogers said the companies had been told to tell the Chinese to “stop hacking” into American companies and infrastructure if they wanted to do business in the United States."
While they were telling the Chinese to 'stop hacking', the NSA was doing just that to Huawei!
I'll just repeat my last para from before. "There's plenty of evidence. Including from other countries around the world.Read/look up if you're interested to learn more."
It's really up to you. That's assuming you're you're interested in actual facts. I am not going to bother to research on behalf of those who'd like to remain ignorant.
I read a lot of committee .pdfs years ago. Huawei says what it says. Documents were supposedly going to be handed over to the FBI (for criminal charges to be made or further investigation?) I haven't seen any charges.
On the other hand, the activities of the NSA were laid bare by Snowden, much to the embarrassment of the US government.
Today, if there were anything solid to go on, I think it would be used to justify what is happening with regards to Chinese activity in the US.
It’s an utterly ludicrous comparison, at multiple levels.
At this point, you sound like a paid lobbyist for the company.
There's plenty of evidence. Including from other countries around the world. Read/look up if you're interested to learn more.
Plenty of evidence? The NYT article made Huawei's stance perfectly clear.
Was the 'evidence' ever presented to the FBI as stated? What happened then?
Can you see the irony in this snippet:
"But Mr. Rogers said the companies had been told to tell the Chinese to “stop hacking” into American companies and infrastructure if they wanted to do business in the United States."
While they were telling the Chinese to 'stop hacking', the NSA was doing just that to Huawei!
I'll just repeat my last para from before. "There's plenty of evidence. Including from other countries around the world.Read/look up if you're interested to learn more."
It's really up to you. That's assuming you're you're interested in actual facts. I am not going to bother to research on behalf of those who'd like to remain ignorant.
I read a lot of committee .pdfs years ago. Huawei says what it says. Documents were supposedly going to be handed over to the FBI (for criminal charges to be made or further investigation?) I haven't seen any charges.
On the other hand, the activities of the NSA were laid bare by Snowden, much to the embarrassment of the US government.
Today, if there were anything solid to go on, I think it would be used to justify what is happening with regards to Chinese activity in the US.
It’s an utterly ludicrous comparison, at multiple levels.
At this point, you sound like a paid lobbyist for the company.
I'm sorry but ludicrous is putting forward a case of Huawei being a threat to US security when that threat cannot be substantiated and the affected party claims innocence and has the same business dealings with 90% of the world's biggest telecommunications providers while at the same time, the accusing party (the US) was shown itself to be far more than a threat in the sense that operation Shotgiant revealed active efforts to impose exactly what it is complaining about with China and against the exact same company (Huawei) which is being affected by these latest US moves.
Ludicrous in the extreme. With that background, the US should really put some of its evidence on the table and follow through on something (for example by acting on it directly instead of putting pressure on other US companies via lobbying).
Now, if China starts lobbying its own companies to for example stop iOS support due to security fears, where would Apple go without WeChat?
It suggests that Apple and Cisco stand to benefit from the current situation as a result of the government thwarting Huawei's entry into the US market.
It draws parallels with the presence of Huawei in Chile where its marketshare went from 3% to 15% in two years.
That's a laughable title and premise. Cheap knockoff brands like Huawei are not a threat to Apple's business at the high-end in the US. Maybe to Samsung and the other knockoffs, but not to the name brand original. Huawei's brand just isn't strong enough. We don't even know how to pronounce it, let only covet it. A KFC phone isn't going to cut it here:
Huawei is the only current handset maker capable of overtaking Apple. As noted earlier n this thread, for two (almost three) quarters of last year, they actually did just that.
Think about that for a moment. They overtook Apple without having true access to one of the biggest handset markets in the world.
Wishful thinking? No. Huawei is a MAJOR threat even without access on equal terms to the US market.
If you somehow think Apple would escape unscathed from competition from Huawei on US soil, I suggest you read up on what has happened in other parts of the world. The much touted (at least here) iOS/ecosystem advantage didn't help Apple stop Huawei.
Walk past any shop front for Orange or Vodafone in Spain and your chances of seeing an iPhone are very slim. You are more than likely to see just two phones. On the right, a Note 8 or S8 and on the left, a Mate 10. And they aren't there for decoration. Employees are pushing them.
The Mate 10 Pro is a direct competitor to the iPhone X without even including the next P series flagship (due for next month or March). And without including any Honor Phones, which will have two flagships this year. So while Apple will have three phones to shore up its defences for a whole year (plus perhaps a new SE), Huawei will have a scaled rollout of four new flagships flanked by a fleet of phones to cover your every need at every price point.
You don't think that could work when it has already worked in other geographical areas where Apple was once dominant?
The name? The same 'problem' in every market but the reality is that it just wasn't a problem. Perhaps the only place in the developed world where The Huawei name is almost unheard of is the US. You don't think that a 100mill dollar branding campaign could change that when it's already worked elsewhere for far less?
The example mentioned in a previous post was Chile. 3% to 15% marketshare in two years - and without a huge marketing campaign.
The KFC phone was a sellout and is now a collector's item.
Wishful thinking! I really don't think so.
And allow me to sign off with this observation:
"This paper argues that U.S. and Chinese cybersecurity policies fail to achieve that balance because their real objectives are economic protectionism."
It suggests that Apple and Cisco stand to benefit from the current situation as a result of the government thwarting Huawei's entry into the US market.
It draws parallels with the presence of Huawei in Chile where its marketshare went from 3% to 15% in two years.
That's a laughable title and premise. Cheap knockoff brands like Huawei are not a threat to Apple's business at the high-end in the US. Maybe to Samsung and the other knockoffs, but not to the name brand original. Huawei's brand just isn't strong enough. We don't even know how to pronounce it, let only covet it. A KFC phone isn't going to cut it here:
Huawei is the only current handset maker capable of overtaking Apple. As noted earlier n this thread, for two (almost three) quarters of last year, they actually did just that.
Think about that for a moment. They overtook Apple without having true access to one of the biggest handset markets in the world.
Wishful thinking? No. Huawei is a MAJOR threat even without access on equal terms to the US market.
If you somehow think Apple would escape unscathed from competition from Huawei on US soil, I suggest you read up on what has happened in other parts of the world. The much touted (at least here) iOS/ecosystem advantage didn't help Apple stop Huawei.
Walk past any shop front for Orange or Vodafone in Spain and your chances of seeing an iPhone are very slim. You are more than likely to see just two phones. On the right, a Note 8 or S8 and on the left, a Mate 10. And they aren't there for decoration. Employees are pushing them.
The Mate 10 Pro is a direct competitor to the iPhone X without even including the next P series flagship (due for next month or March). And without including any Honor Phones, which will have two flagships this year. So while Apple will have three phones to shore up its defences for a whole year (plus perhaps a new SE), Huawei will have a scaled rollout of four new flagships flanked by a fleet of phones to cover your every need at every price point.
You don't think that could work when it has already worked in other geographical areas where Apple was once dominant?
The name? The same 'problem' in every market but the reality is that it just wasn't a problem. Perhaps the only place in the developed world where The Huawei name is almost unheard of is the US. You don't think that a 100mill dollar branding campaign could change that when it's already worked elsewhere for far less?
The example mentioned in a previous post was Chile. 3% to 15% marketshare in two years - and without a huge marketing campaign.
The KFC phone was a sellout and is now a collector's item.
Wishful thinking! I really don't think so.
And allow me to sign off with this observation:
"This paper argues that U.S. and Chinese cybersecurity policies fail to achieve that balance because their real objectives are economic protectionism."
Whatever happens with Huawei, you really need to stop conflating handsets and telecom systems in your argument as it pertains to the U.S. These are two completely different issues, and the telecom side, as you agree, has nothing to to with Apple. Myself, I don't see that Huawei handsets would have any impact on iPhone sales, and the Mate 10 Pro is not a direct competitor for the simple reason that it isn't within the iPhone ecosystem.
For that, I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of handset sales in the U.S.
Apple's iPhone has, according to the data that I have seen, somewhere in the neighborhood of 43% user share in the U.S. The market that Huawei is entering, is the Android OS Market, which is 57%, and dominated by Samsung. There's very little leakage of users from one to the other ecosystem, and if anything, it seems to favor Apple.
The reality of Huawei entering the U.S. market with a Carrier adoption, like AT&T, is that there would be a pricing war between Huawei and Samsung, plus the others, who would not willingly give up their dominance. Apple would see plenty of poorly implemented ad campaigns against the iPhone, but otherwise, not see any other impact in sales.
You should also be advised that a recent survey showed that 78% of teens want an iPhone as their next smartphone. That's going to be a very difficult marketing effort to turn that around, and it has certainly been tried and tried again.
As for the telecom issue, one individual pushing this is Wyoming Senator Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. Be advised that Wyoming is the smallest state by population, and is known to be very conservative, so Liz is certainly playing to both her constituents, and the larger National Security issue of Huawei equipment in U.S. telecom systems. I'll let the Chinese government and the WTO figure out the telecom side.
It suggests that Apple and Cisco stand to benefit from the current situation as a result of the government thwarting Huawei's entry into the US market.
It draws parallels with the presence of Huawei in Chile where its marketshare went from 3% to 15% in two years.
That's a laughable title and premise. Cheap knockoff brands like Huawei are not a threat to Apple's business at the high-end in the US. Maybe to Samsung and the other knockoffs, but not to the name brand original. Huawei's brand just isn't strong enough. We don't even know how to pronounce it, let only covet it. A KFC phone isn't going to cut it here:
Huawei is the only current handset maker capable of overtaking Apple. As noted earlier n this thread, for two (almost three) quarters of last year, they actually did just that.
Think about that for a moment. They overtook Apple without having true access to one of the biggest handset markets in the world.
Wishful thinking? No. Huawei is a MAJOR threat even without access on equal terms to the US market.
If you somehow think Apple would escape unscathed from competition from Huawei on US soil, I suggest you read up on what has happened in other parts of the world. The much touted (at least here) iOS/ecosystem advantage didn't help Apple stop Huawei.
Walk past any shop front for Orange or Vodafone in Spain and your chances of seeing an iPhone are very slim. You are more than likely to see just two phones. On the right, a Note 8 or S8 and on the left, a Mate 10. And they aren't there for decoration. Employees are pushing them.
The Mate 10 Pro is a direct competitor to the iPhone X without even including the next P series flagship (due for next month or March). And without including any Honor Phones, which will have two flagships this year. So while Apple will have three phones to shore up its defences for a whole year (plus perhaps a new SE), Huawei will have a scaled rollout of four new flagships flanked by a fleet of phones to cover your every need at every price point.
You don't think that could work when it has already worked in other geographical areas where Apple was once dominant?
The name? The same 'problem' in every market but the reality is that it just wasn't a problem. Perhaps the only place in the developed world where The Huawei name is almost unheard of is the US. You don't think that a 100mill dollar branding campaign could change that when it's already worked elsewhere for far less?
The example mentioned in a previous post was Chile. 3% to 15% marketshare in two years - and without a huge marketing campaign.
The KFC phone was a sellout and is now a collector's item.
Wishful thinking! I really don't think so.
And allow me to sign off with this observation:
"This paper argues that U.S. and Chinese cybersecurity policies fail to achieve that balance because their real objectives are economic protectionism."
Whatever happens with Huawei, you really need to stop conflating handsets and telecom systems in your argument as it pertains to the U.S. These are two completely different issues, and the telecom side, as you agree, has nothing to to with Apple. Myself, I don't see that Huawei handsets would have any impact on iPhone sales, and the Mate 10 Pro is not a direct competitor for the simple reason that it isn't within the iPhone ecosystem.
For that, I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of handset sales in the U.S.
Apple's iPhone has, according to the data that I have seen, somewhere in the neighborhood of 43% user share in the U.S. The market that Huawei is entering, is the Android OS Market, which is 57%, and dominated by Samsung. There's very little leakage of users from one to the other ecosystem, and if anything, it seems to favor Apple.
The reality of Huawei entering the U.S. market with a Carrier adoption, like AT&T, is that there would be a pricing war between Huawei and Samsung, plus the others, who would not willingly give up their dominance. Apple would see plenty of poorly implemented ad campaigns against the iPhone, but otherwise, not see any other impact in sales.
You should also be advised that a recent survey showed that 78% of teens want an iPhone as their next smartphone. That's going to be a very difficult marketing effort to turn that around, and it has certainly been tried and tried again.
As for the telecom issue, one individual pushing this is Wyoming Senator Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. Be advised that Wyoming is the smallest state by population, and is known to be very conservative, so Liz is certainly playing to both her constituents, and the larger National Security issue of Huawei equipment in U.S. telecom systems. I'll let the Chinese government and the WTO figure out the telecom side.
There are multiple scenarios in play.
I have never considered the communication backbone scenario for 2018. Only the carrier option (Huawei phones sold through a carrier, in this case AT&T).
Huawei would have more impact on Samsung in such a scenario because of the Android to Android factor but, as I mentioned earlier, Apple would not emerge unscathed from Huawei's presence. This is based on recent history (also mentioned above) where in fact Apple has already felt the impact in every market where both companies compete on equal terms. Even in Apple's traditionally strong markets Huawei has gained a foothold.
Huawei has decided to follow through with its branding campaign in the US but market realities mean not having carrier distribution is a serious blow.
Being able walk into a store, pick up the phone and try it out is something most people prefer to do. The current situation will see less people getting that opportunity and the support services typically offered by carriers.
It's curious you mention teens. If Apple hadn't changed its strategy I could see many of the 78% not getting an iPhone in spite of wanting one. I'm sure that more of them will actually get one now that Apple's price spread is wider even if it means it is last year's phone or older. A good move by Apple and clearly for a reason. We can speculate on that.
When people suggest this years models are already tailing off in sales, I wonder how many take into account this new reality and that they could still be moving plenty of phones that aren't 2017 models.
Running with teen example again, people generally want what they know. According to many channels in the US, Huawei is virtually an unknown. The branding campaign is there to change that angle.
The P Series is the 'design' phone for the fashion conscious and we are weeks away from a new release. Rumours point to a bezeless, tri-camera setup. I have no idea about pricing but I'd imagine it will be a fair way off iPhone X price tag.
This begs the question of how much importance full screen phones have in the purchasing decision.
It's not a problem for me at all or my wife. We changed the iPhone 6 battery so postponed a new iPhone purchase for this past Christmas but I wonder if teens and hipsters are influenced by bezeless marketing or if it simply doesn't matter. If bezels (or lack of them) are important, Apple only has one (expensive) card to play until the end of the year. Huawei is not facing that issue. We will see (are already seeing in fact) bezeless phones at many price points. Dual front facing cameras and possibly triple rear cameras across the Honor and Huawei ranges
If the AT&T deal had gone through it would have been harder for Apple even if it were even harder for Samsung.
Depending on the scenarios you want to pick up on there are lots of theories. I've pointed to some of them already but they are all mostly politically intertwined and I prefer to not open that melon too much as people go overboard.
For me, US citizens are losing out but at least they still have the option to seek out a Microsoft store, Best Buy or whatever, see what is on offer other than Samsung and Apple.
There was also the possibility of Huawei applying its crediting system to AT&T which would have spelt major trouble for both Apple and Samsung. That was not feasible through the US it was, through AT&T in Mexico. I wonder if the lobbying and proposed bills will affect AT&T's business with Huawei outside the US.
Comments
"Despite the appearance of conflict between Apple and U.S. law enforcement, the company is not only cooperating in many search requests but actually training the FBI and other police forces."
You'll never hear about backdoors from Apple or the agencies, that's why they call them gag orders. Yahoo tried to go against the agencies' fiber and they were hit with penalties that would have Yahoo bankrupt in days.
Pathetic...
Can someone please explain the phrases "backdoor" versus "cooperating in many search requests... [and] training FBI and other police forces..." to @bloggerblog? I am gobsmacked.
(And thanks for the laugh, with this ludicrous line: "Yahoo ... were hit with penalties that would have Yahoo bankrupt in days." Yeah, that's the reason Yahoo failed, sure. Man, from where do these folks crawl out...)
Also, Huawei being involved in submarine communications probably hurts them in this particular instance. Me, I wouldn't have brought that up.
Was the 'evidence' ever presented to the FBI as stated? What happened then?
Can you see the irony in this snippet:
"But Mr. Rogers said the companies had been told to tell the Chinese to “stop hacking” into American companies and infrastructure if they wanted to do business in the United States."
While they were telling the Chinese to 'stop hacking', the NSA was doing just that to Huawei!
It's really up to you. That's assuming you're you're interested in actual facts. I am not going to bother to research on behalf of those who'd like to remain ignorant.
Huawei is quite transparent in its activities. Its R&D centres are not hidden in China but distributed worldwide and collaborating with all manner of organisations.
Its marine operations are well known.
http://www.huaweimarine.com/en/Marine/Home/Experience
Recently in the news due to Australia picking up on US 'fears' and blocking a submarine cable project:
https://www.ft.com/content/96513f58-d959-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482
On the other hand, the activities of the NSA were laid bare by Snowden, much to the embarrassment of the US government.
Today, if there were anything solid to go on, I think it would be used to justify what is happening with regards to Chinese activity in the US.
There is no equivalence here.
At this point, you sound like a paid lobbyist for the company.
Ludicrous in the extreme. With that background, the US should really put some of its evidence on the table and follow through on something (for example by acting on it directly instead of putting pressure on other US companies via lobbying).
Now, if China starts lobbying its own companies to for example stop iOS support due to security fears, where would Apple go without WeChat?
A US viewpoint:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2018/01/16/smartphone-maker-rival-samsung-and-apple-gets-throttled-u-s/1035782001/
Did you pay attention to the first paragraph?
Huawei is the only current handset maker capable of overtaking Apple. As noted earlier n this thread, for two (almost three) quarters of last year, they actually did just that.
Think about that for a moment. They overtook Apple without having true access to one of the biggest handset markets in the world.
Wishful thinking? No. Huawei is a MAJOR threat even without access on equal terms to the US market.
If you somehow think Apple would escape unscathed from competition from Huawei on US soil, I suggest you read up on what has happened in other parts of the world. The much touted (at least here) iOS/ecosystem advantage didn't help Apple stop Huawei.
Walk past any shop front for Orange or Vodafone in Spain and your chances of seeing an iPhone are very slim. You are more than likely to see just two phones. On the right, a Note 8 or S8 and on the left, a Mate 10. And they aren't there for decoration. Employees are pushing them.
The Mate 10 Pro is a direct competitor to the iPhone X without even including the next P series flagship (due for next month or March). And without including any Honor Phones, which will have two flagships this year. So while Apple will have three phones to shore up its defences for a whole year (plus perhaps a new SE), Huawei will have a scaled rollout of four new flagships flanked by a fleet of phones to cover your every need at every price point.
You don't think that could work when it has already worked in other geographical areas where Apple was once dominant?
The name? The same 'problem' in every market but the reality is that it just wasn't a problem. Perhaps the only place in the developed world where The Huawei name is almost unheard of is the US. You don't think that a 100mill dollar branding campaign could change that when it's already worked elsewhere for far less?
The example mentioned in a previous post was Chile. 3% to 15% marketshare in two years - and without a huge marketing campaign.
The KFC phone was a sellout and is now a collector's item.
Wishful thinking! I really don't think so.
And allow me to sign off with this observation:
"This paper argues that U.S. and Chinese cybersecurity policies fail to achieve that balance because their real objectives are economic protectionism."
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/cybersecurity-or-protectionism-defusing-most-volatile-issue-us-china#full
The losers here? Consumers.
For that, I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of handset sales in the U.S.
Apple's iPhone has, according to the data that I have seen, somewhere in the neighborhood of 43% user share in the U.S. The market that Huawei is entering, is the Android OS Market, which is 57%, and dominated by Samsung. There's very little leakage of users from one to the other ecosystem, and if anything, it seems to favor Apple.
The reality of Huawei entering the U.S. market with a Carrier adoption, like AT&T, is that there would be a pricing war between Huawei and Samsung, plus the others, who would not willingly give up their dominance. Apple would see plenty of poorly implemented ad campaigns against the iPhone, but otherwise, not see any other impact in sales.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2018/01/iphone-market-share-us-increase-5-percent-yoy/
You should also be advised that a recent survey showed that 78% of teens want an iPhone as their next smartphone. That's going to be a very difficult marketing effort to turn that around, and it has certainly been tried and tried again.
As for the telecom issue, one individual pushing this is Wyoming Senator Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. Be advised that Wyoming is the smallest state by population, and is known to be very conservative, so Liz is certainly playing to both her constituents, and the larger National Security issue of Huawei equipment in U.S. telecom systems. I'll let the Chinese government and the WTO figure out the telecom side.
I have never considered the communication backbone scenario for 2018. Only the carrier option (Huawei phones sold through a carrier, in this case AT&T).
Huawei would have more impact on Samsung in such a scenario because of the Android to Android factor but, as I mentioned earlier, Apple would not emerge unscathed from Huawei's presence. This is based on recent history (also mentioned above) where in fact Apple has already felt the impact in every market where both companies compete on equal terms. Even in Apple's traditionally strong markets Huawei has gained a foothold.
Huawei has decided to follow through with its branding campaign in the US but market realities mean not having carrier distribution is a serious blow.
Being able walk into a store, pick up the phone and try it out is something most people prefer to do. The current situation will see less people getting that opportunity and the support services typically offered by carriers.
It's curious you mention teens. If Apple hadn't changed its strategy I could see many of the 78% not getting an iPhone in spite of wanting one. I'm sure that more of them will actually get one now that Apple's price spread is wider even if it means it is last year's phone or older. A good move by Apple and clearly for a reason. We can speculate on that.
When people suggest this years models are already tailing off in sales, I wonder how many take into account this new reality and that they could still be moving plenty of phones that aren't 2017 models.
Running with teen example again, people generally want what they know. According to many channels in the US, Huawei is virtually an unknown. The branding campaign is there to change that angle.
The P Series is the 'design' phone for the fashion conscious and we are weeks away from a new release. Rumours point to a bezeless, tri-camera setup. I have no idea about pricing but I'd imagine it will be a fair way off iPhone X price tag.
This begs the question of how much importance full screen phones have in the purchasing decision.
It's not a problem for me at all or my wife. We changed the iPhone 6 battery so postponed a new iPhone purchase for this past Christmas but I wonder if teens and hipsters are influenced by bezeless marketing or if it simply doesn't matter. If bezels (or lack of them) are important, Apple only has one (expensive) card to play until the end of the year. Huawei is not facing that issue. We will see (are already seeing in fact) bezeless phones at many price points. Dual front facing cameras and possibly triple rear cameras across the Honor and Huawei ranges
If the AT&T deal had gone through it would have been harder for Apple even if it were even harder for Samsung.
Depending on the scenarios you want to pick up on there are lots of theories. I've pointed to some of them already but they are all mostly politically intertwined and I prefer to not open that melon too much as people go overboard.
For me, US citizens are losing out but at least they still have the option to seek out a Microsoft store, Best Buy or whatever, see what is on offer other than Samsung and Apple.
There was also the possibility of Huawei applying its crediting system to AT&T which would have spelt major trouble for both Apple and Samsung. That was not feasible through the US it was, through AT&T in Mexico. I wonder if the lobbying and proposed bills will affect AT&T's business with Huawei outside the US.