Got my iPad Pro this week. Pretty amazing device. I upgraded from a 2017 10.5" iPP -- which I listed on Ebay and will sell for $350, bringing its original $800 price down to $450. or $150 a year. There is nothing to complain about there.
I have a FormLabs Form 2 3D printer, and am really looking forward to any iPad Apps that can scan 3D objects, and output as STL or OBJ files for further editing. It might be the case that the iPhones this fall will be a better match for that.
Don't get too excited. The LIDAR stuff is not good for 3D scanning; it's only good for room-scale geometry. As far as I can tell so far, that's the nature of the hardware, unless there's some way software can improve on that. You need to use the Face ID sensors to do 3D scanning of objects, so that means with the display facing away from you, which makes the process kinda clunky since you can't easily see what you're doing. I was hoping the LIDAR stuff would have the same or better resolution of the Face ID stuff but that doesn't seem to be the case. At this point I'm not expecting better results with the next iPhone, but it's possible! That said, 3D scanning with the Face ID camera is pretty cool! I haven't experimented with my new iPad Pro and new iPhone 11 Pro to see if either have better/different Face ID scanning abilities (not sure if they're the same sensor array or not).
Thanks for the feedback.
I'm hoping for a LIDAR with more resolution than the iPad LIDAR and a narrower field better suited for scanning small objects.
Me too, though given what a niche application that'd be, it's hard to see them doing it unless it came at no extra expense.
I'm going to revisit the scanning apps and see what's what as far as developer notes go when I get some free time. I downloaded one to try out with the Lidar and scanned my room, gives you a decent rough mesh of everything, but didn't try it close up. The app literally had a note in it saying to use the other one they developed with Face ID for better quality 3D scanning of objects, so guessing they had done some testing there.
I'm also wanting to try figuring out a setup for better scanning with the Face ID stuff, like using a tripod and a lazy Susan to rotate the object, and be able to get to a place where I can see the results on the screen as I do it, which is the main obstacle I was hoping to overcome. Not ideal for stuff in the field, but for home use it could work.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It is ironic that you are quoting a former spy. Perhaps laughable is a more appropriate adjective. Could be that this guy isn't actually worried about spying at all and is simply worried that China might take a lead in that area?
National security? Whose? He obviously had no qualms about the national security of those he was spying on!
Anyway, more than thirty years of activity worldwide and still not a major security incident on Huawei's record. Perhaps that trust earned, along with better technology, better prices and better strategic planning is why nations still allow their ICT companies to use them - in spite of all the chest thumping by the U.S administration.
Of course the lack of evidence hasn't gone unnoticed.
In fact most of the world recently looked on in utter amazement as Mr. Pompro made headlines by proclaiming that:
"I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan.”
and
"Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was manmade. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point. "
However, when he was reminded that his very own experts had formally stated that U.S scientific consensus was that the virus was not manmade or genetically modified, he said:
“That’s right. I agree with that"
Do you really think this administration has any credibility left?
How about dealing with the article now?
Someone made outright absurd claims and I challenged them with reasoned comments (comments which I often let go unchallenged) . You clearly have nothing to debate on that point in spite of your blustering. Those who read this will draw their own conclusions on where the reality lies.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It is ironic that you are quoting a former spy. Perhaps laughable is a more appropriate adjective. Could be that this guy isn't actually worried about spying at all and is simply worried that China might take a lead in that area?
National security? Whose? He obviously had no qualms about the national security of those he was spying on!
Anyway, more than thirty years of activity worldwide and still not a major security incident on Huawei's record. Perhaps that trust earned, along with better technology, better prices and better strategic planning is why nations still allow their ICT companies to use them - in spite of all the chest thumping by the U.S administration.
Of course the lack of evidence hasn't gone unnoticed.
In fact most of the world recently looked on in utter amazement as Mr. Pompro made headlines by proclaiming that:
"I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan.”
and
"Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was manmade. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point. "
However, when he was reminded that his very own experts had formally stated that U.S scientific consensus was that the virus was not manmade or genetically modified, he said:
“That’s right. I agree with that"
Do you really think this administration has any credibility left?
How about dealing with the article now?
Someone made outright absurd claims and I challenged them with reasoned comments (comments which I often let go unchallenged) . You clearly have nothing to debate on that point in spite of your blustering. Those who read this will draw their own conclusions on where the reality lies.
I posted, a long time ago, a link to an article stating that Huawei was principally owned by employees, but in fact, that it was a CCP employee union, ie, part of the CCP, and not actually run by employees.
You disagreed on that, and responded with no evidence otherwise.
So I state again, Huawei is a State Owned Enterprise, and that has everything to do with National Security concerns. More to the point, Huawei is also involved in surveillance and AI face recognition, notably of minorities Uyghurs in detention camps in Xinjiang. You have stated as much yourself. National Security is about risk mitigation, not proof of harm, though there have been enough National Security breaches in countries served by Huawei as proof enough.
As I’ve said before, my expectation is that Huawei would like nothing more than to exit Xinjiang and avoid any reputational risk overseas. This is a political trap for the company, recognizing how contentious this is as an issue, but with its increasing reliance on Beijing’s support to survive U.S. sanctions, being unable to risk contradicting the government’s public stance on Xinjiang."
I'm not anti-Chinese, I'm anti-authoritarian, which means I'm anti-CCP, and concerned about human rights, something that you don't discuss.
As for the problems in our own government, we at least have the possibilities of elections to look forward to. The Chinese people do not.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
What Chinese law dictates has been tackled and Huawei claims it is not affected.
It has also been noted that similar laws also exist in other countries (U.S included) or could be passed easily.
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
And as if that wasn't enough, ALL Huawei user data is subject to local laws wherever they operate. Hence ALL EU user data is stored within the EU by a separate company.
And as if that wasn't enough, no other ICT company on the planet suffers the same scrutiny as Huawei. Right down to the source code.
The network equipment Huawei supplies is managed by the owners of the equipment: the carriers. More have chosen Huawei than any other provider.
I think we can be sure that the experts within those companies understand what they are doing and the universal risks involved. Those risks that apply to all vendors but none of them receive the same scrutiny as Huawei.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table and has failed time and again in this field. Last week's Covid-19 claims being just the latest in a long line of accusations that are based on literally nothing. Any wonder no one takes Trump seriously and he has to bully everyone?
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon), and I'm no fan of Tesla.
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
Personally, I would like to see Apple accelerate disengagement from China, but those countries that would be suitable for production, are generally also authoritarian. Still, Apple would be better off dispersing its manufacturing to more countries.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon).
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
China needs business. From its internal market and from abroad. Just like everyone else. Trump complains about China and the trade deficit that the U.S has with it, and he has made a campaign out of China because China was the biggest threat in the technological power struggle. A purely protectionist move masquerading as a corrective move to a trade imbalance.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon).
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
China needs business. From its internal market and from abroad. Just like everyone else. Trump complains about China and the trade deficit that the U.S has with it, and he has made a campaign out of China because China was the biggest threat in the technological power struggle. A purely protectionist move masquerading as a corrective move to a trade imbalance.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
Just for the record, if China hadn't devolved to be more authoritarian under Xi Jinping, and hadn't gone on a hunt for dual purpose IP (civilian / military), both stealing and acquiring, and hadn't been stirring up the South China Seas with their expanded Coastal Fleet, as well as a rapidly expanding Blue Water fleet, the U.S. and other countries in the Indo Pacific region wouldn't be so concerned about China.
But China expansionism is exactly what it is, and it doesn't bode well for the world.
More to the point, China can not be trusted, nor can its companies.
"This is the first in a series of five stories exploring the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic. The first story examines the push by foreign powers to bring home production of some goods, particularly vital medical equipment and medicines, due to an overreliance on China exposed by the pandemic.
Over the space of two weeks, powerful figures from three of the world’s four largest economies have publicly announced or discussed plans to lure their countries out of China, with such rhetoric finding growing support after the supply shock caused by China’s coronavirus shutdown.
On Tuesday, European Union trade commissioner Phil Hogan said the bloc would seek to “reduce our trade dependencies” after the pandemic, Politico reported.
Last week, Japan unveiled a US$2.2 billion fund to tempt Japanese manufacturers back to the country or even to Southeast Asia – as long as they leave China – in response to supply chain disruptions stemming from the pandemic. This followed the director of the United States’ National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, saying that Washington should pay the moving costs of American firms bringing manufacturing back from China."
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what China is looking forward to, but China does indeed have a plan to go it alone as well, though that may end up putting the West collectively against China and its authoritarian allies, especially including Russia. Personally, the West should exit China and set up a completely different system of governance eschewing the UN, which has been lately tainted by China.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon).
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
China needs business. From its internal market and from abroad. Just like everyone else. Trump complains about China and the trade deficit that the U.S has with it, and he has made a campaign out of China because China was the biggest threat in the technological power struggle. A purely protectionist move masquerading as a corrective move to a trade imbalance.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
Just for the record, if China hadn't devolved to be more authoritarian under Xi Jinping, and hadn't gone on a hunt for dual purpose IP (civilian / military), both stealing and acquiring, and hadn't been stirring up the South China Seas with their expanded Coastal Fleet, as well as a rapidly expanding Blue Water fleet, the U.S. and other countries in the Indo Pacific region wouldn't be so concerned about China.
But China expansionism is exactly what it is, and it doesn't bode well for the world.
More to the point, China can not be trusted, nor can its companies.
"This is the first in a series of five stories exploring the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic. The first story examines the push by foreign powers to bring home production of some goods, particularly vital medical equipment and medicines, due to an overreliance on China exposed by the pandemic.
Over the space of two weeks, powerful figures from three of the world’s four largest economies have publicly announced or discussed plans to lure their countries out of China, with such rhetoric finding growing support after the supply shock caused by China’s coronavirus shutdown.
On Tuesday, European Union trade commissioner Phil Hogan said the bloc would seek to “reduce our trade dependencies” after the pandemic, Politico reported.
Last week, Japan unveiled a US$2.2 billion fund to tempt Japanese manufacturers back to the country or even to Southeast Asia – as long as they leave China – in response to supply chain disruptions stemming from the pandemic. This followed the director of the United States’ National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, saying that Washington should pay the moving costs of American firms bringing manufacturing back from China."
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what China is looking forward to, but China does indeed have a plan to go it alone as well, though that may end up putting the West collectively against China and its authoritarian allies, especially including Russia. Personally, the West should exit China and set up a completely different system of governance eschewing the UN, which has been lately tainted by China.
I'm guessing that you will still side with China.
Whatever you want but the point was, does China desperately need Apple?
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon).
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
China needs business. From its internal market and from abroad. Just like everyone else. Trump complains about China and the trade deficit that the U.S has with it, and he has made a campaign out of China because China was the biggest threat in the technological power struggle. A purely protectionist move masquerading as a corrective move to a trade imbalance.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
Just for the record, if China hadn't devolved to be more authoritarian under Xi Jinping, and hadn't gone on a hunt for dual purpose IP (civilian / military), both stealing and acquiring, and hadn't been stirring up the South China Seas with their expanded Coastal Fleet, as well as a rapidly expanding Blue Water fleet, the U.S. and other countries in the Indo Pacific region wouldn't be so concerned about China.
But China expansionism is exactly what it is, and it doesn't bode well for the world.
More to the point, China can not be trusted, nor can its companies.
"This is the first in a series of five stories exploring the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic. The first story examines the push by foreign powers to bring home production of some goods, particularly vital medical equipment and medicines, due to an overreliance on China exposed by the pandemic.
Over the space of two weeks, powerful figures from three of the world’s four largest economies have publicly announced or discussed plans to lure their countries out of China, with such rhetoric finding growing support after the supply shock caused by China’s coronavirus shutdown.
On Tuesday, European Union trade commissioner Phil Hogan said the bloc would seek to “reduce our trade dependencies” after the pandemic, Politico reported.
Last week, Japan unveiled a US$2.2 billion fund to tempt Japanese manufacturers back to the country or even to Southeast Asia – as long as they leave China – in response to supply chain disruptions stemming from the pandemic. This followed the director of the United States’ National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, saying that Washington should pay the moving costs of American firms bringing manufacturing back from China."
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what China is looking forward to, but China does indeed have a plan to go it alone as well, though that may end up putting the West collectively against China and its authoritarian allies, especially including Russia. Personally, the West should exit China and set up a completely different system of governance eschewing the UN, which has been lately tainted by China.
I'm guessing that you will still side with China.
Whatever you want but the point was, does China desperately need Apple?
No. It doesn't.
Okay, lets see how it works out when the West gets its major brands shifting supply chains outside of China. I'm sure that all of those out of work Chinese will be really happy with the Chinese Government, as you seem to be.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon).
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
China needs business. From its internal market and from abroad. Just like everyone else. Trump complains about China and the trade deficit that the U.S has with it, and he has made a campaign out of China because China was the biggest threat in the technological power struggle. A purely protectionist move masquerading as a corrective move to a trade imbalance.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
Just for the record, if China hadn't devolved to be more authoritarian under Xi Jinping, and hadn't gone on a hunt for dual purpose IP (civilian / military), both stealing and acquiring, and hadn't been stirring up the South China Seas with their expanded Coastal Fleet, as well as a rapidly expanding Blue Water fleet, the U.S. and other countries in the Indo Pacific region wouldn't be so concerned about China.
But China expansionism is exactly what it is, and it doesn't bode well for the world.
More to the point, China can not be trusted, nor can its companies.
"This is the first in a series of five stories exploring the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic. The first story examines the push by foreign powers to bring home production of some goods, particularly vital medical equipment and medicines, due to an overreliance on China exposed by the pandemic.
Over the space of two weeks, powerful figures from three of the world’s four largest economies have publicly announced or discussed plans to lure their countries out of China, with such rhetoric finding growing support after the supply shock caused by China’s coronavirus shutdown.
On Tuesday, European Union trade commissioner Phil Hogan said the bloc would seek to “reduce our trade dependencies” after the pandemic, Politico reported.
Last week, Japan unveiled a US$2.2 billion fund to tempt Japanese manufacturers back to the country or even to Southeast Asia – as long as they leave China – in response to supply chain disruptions stemming from the pandemic. This followed the director of the United States’ National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, saying that Washington should pay the moving costs of American firms bringing manufacturing back from China."
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what China is looking forward to, but China does indeed have a plan to go it alone as well, though that may end up putting the West collectively against China and its authoritarian allies, especially including Russia. Personally, the West should exit China and set up a completely different system of governance eschewing the UN, which has been lately tainted by China.
I'm guessing that you will still side with China.
Whatever you want but the point was, does China desperately need Apple?
No. It doesn't.
Okay, lets see how it works out when the West gets its major brands shifting supply chains outside of China. I'm sure that all of those out of work Chinese will be really happy with the Chinese Government, as you seem to be.
That is a completely different issue and referenced by me when I said China needs business.
The point however, is not that, but the utterly absurd claim that China 'desperately needs Apple' .
Obviously it doesn't, and how such a claim came to be made is utterly mindboggling.
As for your claim now. Yes, that would have an effect but that situation swings in every direction. We are all interdependent to a point.
If China dumped Boeing for Airbus, the U.S would enter immediate crisis mode. We are talking trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades. That would be a decision relating to just one company and that trade cannot go elsewhere (well, except the void!) and Boeing is not in great shape right now. Idem, many other industries. Take manufacturing out and you serve yourself on a plate to getting a poke in the eye. That's how trade works. Tit for tat and Apple's China business is anything but out of trade war woods right now.
I can tell you that there are rumours of China already implementing rip and replace strategy for U.S networking infrastructure with Cisco being the big loser. That, in retaliation to the situation of Huawei in the U.S. We have already seen the impact of lost farming trade through China taking agricultural trade elsewhere. A double whammy where Trump had to inject billions into the industry to keep it afloat (what was that line about state subsidies?) and saw U.S competitors like Brazil gleefully plugging the gaps. Just like with Boeing, where will the U.S sell those products without access to China? Don't think that others won't step in to substitute U.S industry. And as Trump has so many dear friends around the world....
By its very nature a pendulum swings over various points and what lies underneath it can shift.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon).
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
China needs business. From its internal market and from abroad. Just like everyone else. Trump complains about China and the trade deficit that the U.S has with it, and he has made a campaign out of China because China was the biggest threat in the technological power struggle. A purely protectionist move masquerading as a corrective move to a trade imbalance.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
Just for the record, if China hadn't devolved to be more authoritarian under Xi Jinping, and hadn't gone on a hunt for dual purpose IP (civilian / military), both stealing and acquiring, and hadn't been stirring up the South China Seas with their expanded Coastal Fleet, as well as a rapidly expanding Blue Water fleet, the U.S. and other countries in the Indo Pacific region wouldn't be so concerned about China.
But China expansionism is exactly what it is, and it doesn't bode well for the world.
More to the point, China can not be trusted, nor can its companies.
"This is the first in a series of five stories exploring the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic. The first story examines the push by foreign powers to bring home production of some goods, particularly vital medical equipment and medicines, due to an overreliance on China exposed by the pandemic.
Over the space of two weeks, powerful figures from three of the world’s four largest economies have publicly announced or discussed plans to lure their countries out of China, with such rhetoric finding growing support after the supply shock caused by China’s coronavirus shutdown.
On Tuesday, European Union trade commissioner Phil Hogan said the bloc would seek to “reduce our trade dependencies” after the pandemic, Politico reported.
Last week, Japan unveiled a US$2.2 billion fund to tempt Japanese manufacturers back to the country or even to Southeast Asia – as long as they leave China – in response to supply chain disruptions stemming from the pandemic. This followed the director of the United States’ National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, saying that Washington should pay the moving costs of American firms bringing manufacturing back from China."
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what China is looking forward to, but China does indeed have a plan to go it alone as well, though that may end up putting the West collectively against China and its authoritarian allies, especially including Russia. Personally, the West should exit China and set up a completely different system of governance eschewing the UN, which has been lately tainted by China.
I'm guessing that you will still side with China.
Whatever you want but the point was, does China desperately need Apple?
No. It doesn't.
Okay, lets see how it works out when the West gets its major brands shifting supply chains outside of China. I'm sure that all of those out of work Chinese will be really happy with the Chinese Government, as you seem to be.
That is a completely different issue and referenced by me when I said China needs business.
The point however, is not that, but the utterly absurd claim that China 'desperately needs Apple' .
Obviously it doesn't, and how such a claim came to be made is utterly mindboggling.
As for your claim now. Yes, that would have an effect but that situation swings in every direction. We are all interdependent to a point.
If China dumped Boeing for Airbus, the U.S would enter immediate crisis mode. We are talking trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades. That would be a decision relating to just one company and that trade cannot go elsewhere (well, except the void!) and Boeing is not in great shape right now. Idem, many other industries. Take manufacturing out and you serve yourself on a plate to getting a poke in the eye. That's how trade works. Tit for tat and Apple's China business is anything but out of trade war woods right now.
I can tell you that there are rumours of China already implementing rip and replace strategy for U.S networking infrastructure with Cisco being the big loser. That, in retaliation to the situation of Huawei in the U.S. We have already seen the impact of lost farming trade through China taking agricultural trade elsewhere. A double whammy where Trump had to inject billions into the industry to keep it afloat (what was that line about state subsidies?) and saw U.S competitors like Brazil gleefully plugging the gaps. Just like with Boeing, where will the U.S sell those products without access to China? Don't think that others won't step in to substitute U.S industry. And as Trump has so many dear friends around the world....
By its very nature a pendulum swings over various points and what lies underneath it can shift.
You try to make a point about Boeing, when in fact, it is low oil prices that will cause problems for the aircraft industry in the long term. Low oil prices mean that inefficient aircraft will not be replaced as early as planned. Both Boeing and Airbus have huge backlogs, and China also has an nascent industry, though they rely on Western engine technology, as an example, CFM International's LEAP engine, to power their aircraft. The U.S. has considered banning those engines due to the advances that the Chinese could glean off of them for their military aircraft engines, which are considered very limited compared to engines from Western manufacturers.
Tourism is going to get decimated until a vaccine arrives, and that is going to effect the aviation market for years to come, and less domestic and international flights will be required by the industry.
The Pandemic has been a wakeup call to the West wrt having so much critical supply chain in a single country, and the actions of the Chinese Government have created an environment where supply chain resilience requires diversity. I already posted the links to that.
It's true that China can survive without Apple, but Apple surviving without China, would be a massive loss for China when other major manufacturers follow Apple's lead, in order to increase resilience and security of their global supply chains.
As for China ripping out U.S. telecom equipment, that is their decision to make, certainly no different than what the U.S. is calling for the UK to do with Huawei and ZTE equipment.
The situation in farm trade has been coopted by the pandemic, in case you weren't aware, and for all practical purposes, the trade issues with China, and future trade negotiations, are off the table. Either way, trade realignments worldwide do not favor China.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon).
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
China needs business. From its internal market and from abroad. Just like everyone else. Trump complains about China and the trade deficit that the U.S has with it, and he has made a campaign out of China because China was the biggest threat in the technological power struggle. A purely protectionist move masquerading as a corrective move to a trade imbalance.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
Just for the record, if China hadn't devolved to be more authoritarian under Xi Jinping, and hadn't gone on a hunt for dual purpose IP (civilian / military), both stealing and acquiring, and hadn't been stirring up the South China Seas with their expanded Coastal Fleet, as well as a rapidly expanding Blue Water fleet, the U.S. and other countries in the Indo Pacific region wouldn't be so concerned about China.
But China expansionism is exactly what it is, and it doesn't bode well for the world.
More to the point, China can not be trusted, nor can its companies.
"This is the first in a series of five stories exploring the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic. The first story examines the push by foreign powers to bring home production of some goods, particularly vital medical equipment and medicines, due to an overreliance on China exposed by the pandemic.
Over the space of two weeks, powerful figures from three of the world’s four largest economies have publicly announced or discussed plans to lure their countries out of China, with such rhetoric finding growing support after the supply shock caused by China’s coronavirus shutdown.
On Tuesday, European Union trade commissioner Phil Hogan said the bloc would seek to “reduce our trade dependencies” after the pandemic, Politico reported.
Last week, Japan unveiled a US$2.2 billion fund to tempt Japanese manufacturers back to the country or even to Southeast Asia – as long as they leave China – in response to supply chain disruptions stemming from the pandemic. This followed the director of the United States’ National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, saying that Washington should pay the moving costs of American firms bringing manufacturing back from China."
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what China is looking forward to, but China does indeed have a plan to go it alone as well, though that may end up putting the West collectively against China and its authoritarian allies, especially including Russia. Personally, the West should exit China and set up a completely different system of governance eschewing the UN, which has been lately tainted by China.
I'm guessing that you will still side with China.
Whatever you want but the point was, does China desperately need Apple?
No. It doesn't.
Okay, lets see how it works out when the West gets its major brands shifting supply chains outside of China. I'm sure that all of those out of work Chinese will be really happy with the Chinese Government, as you seem to be.
That is a completely different issue and referenced by me when I said China needs business.
The point however, is not that, but the utterly absurd claim that China 'desperately needs Apple' .
Obviously it doesn't, and how such a claim came to be made is utterly mindboggling.
As for your claim now. Yes, that would have an effect but that situation swings in every direction. We are all interdependent to a point.
If China dumped Boeing for Airbus, the U.S would enter immediate crisis mode. We are talking trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades. That would be a decision relating to just one company and that trade cannot go elsewhere (well, except the void!) and Boeing is not in great shape right now. Idem, many other industries. Take manufacturing out and you serve yourself on a plate to getting a poke in the eye. That's how trade works. Tit for tat and Apple's China business is anything but out of trade war woods right now.
I can tell you that there are rumours of China already implementing rip and replace strategy for U.S networking infrastructure with Cisco being the big loser. That, in retaliation to the situation of Huawei in the U.S. We have already seen the impact of lost farming trade through China taking agricultural trade elsewhere. A double whammy where Trump had to inject billions into the industry to keep it afloat (what was that line about state subsidies?) and saw U.S competitors like Brazil gleefully plugging the gaps. Just like with Boeing, where will the U.S sell those products without access to China? Don't think that others won't step in to substitute U.S industry. And as Trump has so many dear friends around the world....
By its very nature a pendulum swings over various points and what lies underneath it can shift.
You try to make a point about Boeing, when in fact, it is low oil prices that will cause problems for the aircraft industry in the long term. Low oil prices mean that inefficient aircraft will not be replaced as early as planned. Both Boeing and Airbus have huge backlogs, and China also has an nascent industry, though they rely on Western engine technology, as an example, CFM International's LEAP engine, to power their aircraft. The U.S. has considered banning those engines due to the advances that the Chinese could glean off of them for their military aircraft engines, which are considerably very limited compared to engines from Western manufacturers.
Tourism is going to get decimated until a vaccine arrives, and that is going to effect the aviation market for years to come, and less domestic and international flights will be required by the industry.
The Pandemic has been a wakeup call to the West wrt having so much critical supply chain in a single country, and the actions of the Chinese Government have created an environment where supply chain resilience requires diversity. I already posted the links to that.
It's true that China can survive without Apple, but Apple surviving without China, would be a massive loss for China when other major manufactures follow Apple's lead, in order to increase resilience and security of their global supply chains.
My point on Boeing is company related in the context of a trade war. It isn't about wider industry issues which by nature affect everyone.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon).
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
China needs business. From its internal market and from abroad. Just like everyone else. Trump complains about China and the trade deficit that the U.S has with it, and he has made a campaign out of China because China was the biggest threat in the technological power struggle. A purely protectionist move masquerading as a corrective move to a trade imbalance.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
Just for the record, if China hadn't devolved to be more authoritarian under Xi Jinping, and hadn't gone on a hunt for dual purpose IP (civilian / military), both stealing and acquiring, and hadn't been stirring up the South China Seas with their expanded Coastal Fleet, as well as a rapidly expanding Blue Water fleet, the U.S. and other countries in the Indo Pacific region wouldn't be so concerned about China.
But China expansionism is exactly what it is, and it doesn't bode well for the world.
More to the point, China can not be trusted, nor can its companies.
"This is the first in a series of five stories exploring the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic. The first story examines the push by foreign powers to bring home production of some goods, particularly vital medical equipment and medicines, due to an overreliance on China exposed by the pandemic.
Over the space of two weeks, powerful figures from three of the world’s four largest economies have publicly announced or discussed plans to lure their countries out of China, with such rhetoric finding growing support after the supply shock caused by China’s coronavirus shutdown.
On Tuesday, European Union trade commissioner Phil Hogan said the bloc would seek to “reduce our trade dependencies” after the pandemic, Politico reported.
Last week, Japan unveiled a US$2.2 billion fund to tempt Japanese manufacturers back to the country or even to Southeast Asia – as long as they leave China – in response to supply chain disruptions stemming from the pandemic. This followed the director of the United States’ National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, saying that Washington should pay the moving costs of American firms bringing manufacturing back from China."
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what China is looking forward to, but China does indeed have a plan to go it alone as well, though that may end up putting the West collectively against China and its authoritarian allies, especially including Russia. Personally, the West should exit China and set up a completely different system of governance eschewing the UN, which has been lately tainted by China.
I'm guessing that you will still side with China.
Whatever you want but the point was, does China desperately need Apple?
No. It doesn't.
Okay, lets see how it works out when the West gets its major brands shifting supply chains outside of China. I'm sure that all of those out of work Chinese will be really happy with the Chinese Government, as you seem to be.
That is a completely different issue and referenced by me when I said China needs business.
The point however, is not that, but the utterly absurd claim that China 'desperately needs Apple' .
Obviously it doesn't, and how such a claim came to be made is utterly mindboggling.
As for your claim now. Yes, that would have an effect but that situation swings in every direction. We are all interdependent to a point.
If China dumped Boeing for Airbus, the U.S would enter immediate crisis mode. We are talking trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades. That would be a decision relating to just one company and that trade cannot go elsewhere (well, except the void!) and Boeing is not in great shape right now. Idem, many other industries. Take manufacturing out and you serve yourself on a plate to getting a poke in the eye. That's how trade works. Tit for tat and Apple's China business is anything but out of trade war woods right now.
I can tell you that there are rumours of China already implementing rip and replace strategy for U.S networking infrastructure with Cisco being the big loser. That, in retaliation to the situation of Huawei in the U.S. We have already seen the impact of lost farming trade through China taking agricultural trade elsewhere. A double whammy where Trump had to inject billions into the industry to keep it afloat (what was that line about state subsidies?) and saw U.S competitors like Brazil gleefully plugging the gaps. Just like with Boeing, where will the U.S sell those products without access to China? Don't think that others won't step in to substitute U.S industry. And as Trump has so many dear friends around the world....
By its very nature a pendulum swings over various points and what lies underneath it can shift.
You try to make a point about Boeing, when in fact, it is low oil prices that will cause problems for the aircraft industry in the long term. Low oil prices mean that inefficient aircraft will not be replaced as early as planned. Both Boeing and Airbus have huge backlogs, and China also has an nascent industry, though they rely on Western engine technology, as an example, CFM International's LEAP engine, to power their aircraft. The U.S. has considered banning those engines due to the advances that the Chinese could glean off of them for their military aircraft engines, which are considerably very limited compared to engines from Western manufacturers.
Tourism is going to get decimated until a vaccine arrives, and that is going to effect the aviation market for years to come, and less domestic and international flights will be required by the industry.
The Pandemic has been a wakeup call to the West wrt having so much critical supply chain in a single country, and the actions of the Chinese Government have created an environment where supply chain resilience requires diversity. I already posted the links to that.
It's true that China can survive without Apple, but Apple surviving without China, would be a massive loss for China when other major manufactures follow Apple's lead, in order to increase resilience and security of their global supply chains.
My point on Boeing is company related in the context of a trade war. It isn't about wider industry issues which by nature affect everyone.
Well the trade war is just a quaint memory now, isn't it.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon).
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
China needs business. From its internal market and from abroad. Just like everyone else. Trump complains about China and the trade deficit that the U.S has with it, and he has made a campaign out of China because China was the biggest threat in the technological power struggle. A purely protectionist move masquerading as a corrective move to a trade imbalance.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
Just for the record, if China hadn't devolved to be more authoritarian under Xi Jinping, and hadn't gone on a hunt for dual purpose IP (civilian / military), both stealing and acquiring, and hadn't been stirring up the South China Seas with their expanded Coastal Fleet, as well as a rapidly expanding Blue Water fleet, the U.S. and other countries in the Indo Pacific region wouldn't be so concerned about China.
But China expansionism is exactly what it is, and it doesn't bode well for the world.
More to the point, China can not be trusted, nor can its companies.
"This is the first in a series of five stories exploring the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic. The first story examines the push by foreign powers to bring home production of some goods, particularly vital medical equipment and medicines, due to an overreliance on China exposed by the pandemic.
Over the space of two weeks, powerful figures from three of the world’s four largest economies have publicly announced or discussed plans to lure their countries out of China, with such rhetoric finding growing support after the supply shock caused by China’s coronavirus shutdown.
On Tuesday, European Union trade commissioner Phil Hogan said the bloc would seek to “reduce our trade dependencies” after the pandemic, Politico reported.
Last week, Japan unveiled a US$2.2 billion fund to tempt Japanese manufacturers back to the country or even to Southeast Asia – as long as they leave China – in response to supply chain disruptions stemming from the pandemic. This followed the director of the United States’ National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, saying that Washington should pay the moving costs of American firms bringing manufacturing back from China."
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what China is looking forward to, but China does indeed have a plan to go it alone as well, though that may end up putting the West collectively against China and its authoritarian allies, especially including Russia. Personally, the West should exit China and set up a completely different system of governance eschewing the UN, which has been lately tainted by China.
I'm guessing that you will still side with China.
Whatever you want but the point was, does China desperately need Apple?
No. It doesn't.
Okay, lets see how it works out when the West gets its major brands shifting supply chains outside of China. I'm sure that all of those out of work Chinese will be really happy with the Chinese Government, as you seem to be.
That is a completely different issue and referenced by me when I said China needs business.
The point however, is not that, but the utterly absurd claim that China 'desperately needs Apple' .
Obviously it doesn't, and how such a claim came to be made is utterly mindboggling.
As for your claim now. Yes, that would have an effect but that situation swings in every direction. We are all interdependent to a point.
If China dumped Boeing for Airbus, the U.S would enter immediate crisis mode. We are talking trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades. That would be a decision relating to just one company and that trade cannot go elsewhere (well, except the void!) and Boeing is not in great shape right now. Idem, many other industries. Take manufacturing out and you serve yourself on a plate to getting a poke in the eye. That's how trade works. Tit for tat and Apple's China business is anything but out of trade war woods right now.
I can tell you that there are rumours of China already implementing rip and replace strategy for U.S networking infrastructure with Cisco being the big loser. That, in retaliation to the situation of Huawei in the U.S. We have already seen the impact of lost farming trade through China taking agricultural trade elsewhere. A double whammy where Trump had to inject billions into the industry to keep it afloat (what was that line about state subsidies?) and saw U.S competitors like Brazil gleefully plugging the gaps. Just like with Boeing, where will the U.S sell those products without access to China? Don't think that others won't step in to substitute U.S industry. And as Trump has so many dear friends around the world....
By its very nature a pendulum swings over various points and what lies underneath it can shift.
You try to make a point about Boeing, when in fact, it is low oil prices that will cause problems for the aircraft industry in the long term. Low oil prices mean that inefficient aircraft will not be replaced as early as planned. Both Boeing and Airbus have huge backlogs, and China also has an nascent industry, though they rely on Western engine technology, as an example, CFM International's LEAP engine, to power their aircraft. The U.S. has considered banning those engines due to the advances that the Chinese could glean off of them for their military aircraft engines, which are considerably very limited compared to engines from Western manufacturers.
Tourism is going to get decimated until a vaccine arrives, and that is going to effect the aviation market for years to come, and less domestic and international flights will be required by the industry.
The Pandemic has been a wakeup call to the West wrt having so much critical supply chain in a single country, and the actions of the Chinese Government have created an environment where supply chain resilience requires diversity. I already posted the links to that.
It's true that China can survive without Apple, but Apple surviving without China, would be a massive loss for China when other major manufactures follow Apple's lead, in order to increase resilience and security of their global supply chains.
My point on Boeing is company related in the context of a trade war. It isn't about wider industry issues which by nature affect everyone.
Well the trade war is just a quaint memory now, isn't it.
Not at all.
Just like Apple and QC, more than kissing and making up, this is a truce. Both will bleed the other for all they can.
When Apple can break free of an obligation, it will.
Trump has no real deal to show for his trade war. If anything, he has seriously undermined U.S interests world-wide and cost U.S companies billions in lost revenues.
Not long ago there were rumours of further plans to curtail Huawei's access to chip foundries. No sooner had the rumour leaked than 'voices' made it crystal clear that China would not stand by and let that happen and that the reaction would sting.
Unfortunately both Huawei and Apple are very much wrapped up in this.
In the meantime COVID-19 has given Trump more than he can chew on and he has seemingly decided to focus on his re-election stakes which will ride more on the pandemic than the trade war with China.
Daniel - you got it right. “China desperately needs Apple, ... to help its domestic device makers know how to design their own phones and AirPod lookalikes.” Apple is the R&D arm for China, and even the Huawei President was quoted as saying ‘Apple is our teacher, we learn from them’. ‘Learn’ LOL. Many people think that because a feature or new tech is released in a Chinese Smartphone prior to Apple’s Fall launches that the Chinese Invented it.
In nearly every case, the tech was developed by Apple or other US company, the Chinese take the tech, the parented ideas, the prototypes and do what they do best, quickly ramp up manufacturing and mass produce using their millions of laborers.
Except that isn't true.
One example in an extremely relevant area: imaging.
Huawei has some of the world's best imaging researchers (in Scandinavia BTW) and uses custom designed Sony sensors to produce best in class camera hardware.
At the other end of the scale it is using AI imaging analysis to diagnose and monitor COVID-19 cases using its in house developed Atlas platforms with massive compute power.
Another relevant area: Wireless.
Huawei utilises in-house-developed on SoC 5G modems to lead the way in 5G.
It leverages 5G technology to pump up its WiFi 6 offerings. Enough to satisfy the needs of 60,000 people in stadium settings.
Another relevant area: batteries
Huawei has enormous resources and scientific knowhow (WattLab) for battery and charging technologies.
The list goes on. Which Apple patents do those key examples infringe on?
Huawei's R&D almost always outstrips Apple's and Apple reportedly pays millions to Huawei to use Huawei patents.
Oh, by the way, and countering your many bullshit statements in the past about Huawei 5G infrastructure not being a National Security issue;
The U.S. is playing hardball, and talking about pulling intelligence assets out of the UK, should the UK continue with its plan to allow Huawei in it 5G buildout.
Threats, 'urging', bullying, huffing and puffing and STILL not a shred of evidence.
Play hardball. Pull the assets out. Do what they think is necessary.
The U.S is basically trying to tell sovereign states what to do and not putting evidence on the table.
I think you'll find people don't take kindly to that, especially as we all know they have nothing to back up the claims.
We've been here before. Too many times. Need I remind you of the latest 'evidence' on COVID-19 being developed in a Chinese lab?
Five Eyes? Inelligence? Pulling assets out really makes a lot of sense, right?
Just do it.
On the subject of Huawei, I suppose you would prefer that absurd claims go unchallenged? The reality is I actually let most of them pass.
But if you think what I pointed out was wrong, just point out where.
"He cites China's controversial 2017 laws which require Chinese companies to cooperate with national intelligence work at Beijing's behest as an insurmountable challenge.
He said China had destroyed trust in cyberspace through its "scaled and indiscriminate hacking of foreign networks and its determination to direct and control Chinese tech companies.
"We asked ourselves if we had the powers akin to the 2017 Chinese intelligence law to direct a company which supplies 5G equipment to telco networks, what could we do with that and could anyone stop us?" Mr Gilding said."
I understand that you have no sense or understanding of National Security, but if you can't even see what Australia has, then you are blind.
An example of risk is buying all of your country's PPE from outside, and expecting it to be delivered, to spec, during an emergency. Better to have control of the production for your minimum requirements. The same applies to infrastructure, you don't want to have to depend on another country for your critical infrastructure, in an emergency, especially if they are an existing adversary.
You are trying to hijack the thread with your anti Chinese rhetoric.
Huawei is not China.
It's not rhetoric -- Chinese law dictates that Chinese companies MUST comply w/ whatever the CCP wants. It's not optional. More, Your knockoff brand was started by a member of the PLA and CCP. China is and remains an authoritarian regime with essentially a dictator for life at the helm. They have little regard for human rights, as the recent increased crimes against the Uyghur religious minority has confirmed yet again (imprisonments, disappearances, camps, organ harvesting, cemetery bulldozing, etc). If China wants to leverage its tech companies' tools and technology to assist in these human rights violations, your knockoff brands are legally compelled to assist. Who's to say they aren't doing so now?
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
There isn't anyway to verify whether Huawei would actually want to do that, as well as being able to do that.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
Huawei's track record speaks for itself.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table.
Can we get back on topic now?
You continue to fail.
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
"A growing number of reportsindicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
The Italian foreign minister credited China with saving lives in Italy, the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag as he welcomed a shipment of medical supplies on the tarmac, and the Mexican foreign minister tweeted a photo of a plane delivering Chinese aid, writing "Gracias China!!!"
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
“Poland wasn’t going to get this stuff unless the phone call was made, so they could use that phone call” for propaganda purposes, the U.S. ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, told the New York Times.
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
“It seems strange to expect signed declarations of thanks from other countries in the midst of the crisis.”
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
"The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
"They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.
There you go again. You are derailing this thread. I can't add any more that will make what I said any clearer.
Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
My main contention is that China does need Apple, just like it needs Tesla (which the CCP will end up owning due to the financing and conditions that they provided Elon).
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
China needs business. From its internal market and from abroad. Just like everyone else. Trump complains about China and the trade deficit that the U.S has with it, and he has made a campaign out of China because China was the biggest threat in the technological power struggle. A purely protectionist move masquerading as a corrective move to a trade imbalance.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
Just for the record, if China hadn't devolved to be more authoritarian under Xi Jinping, and hadn't gone on a hunt for dual purpose IP (civilian / military), both stealing and acquiring, and hadn't been stirring up the South China Seas with their expanded Coastal Fleet, as well as a rapidly expanding Blue Water fleet, the U.S. and other countries in the Indo Pacific region wouldn't be so concerned about China.
But China expansionism is exactly what it is, and it doesn't bode well for the world.
More to the point, China can not be trusted, nor can its companies.
"This is the first in a series of five stories exploring the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic. The first story examines the push by foreign powers to bring home production of some goods, particularly vital medical equipment and medicines, due to an overreliance on China exposed by the pandemic.
Over the space of two weeks, powerful figures from three of the world’s four largest economies have publicly announced or discussed plans to lure their countries out of China, with such rhetoric finding growing support after the supply shock caused by China’s coronavirus shutdown.
On Tuesday, European Union trade commissioner Phil Hogan said the bloc would seek to “reduce our trade dependencies” after the pandemic, Politico reported.
Last week, Japan unveiled a US$2.2 billion fund to tempt Japanese manufacturers back to the country or even to Southeast Asia – as long as they leave China – in response to supply chain disruptions stemming from the pandemic. This followed the director of the United States’ National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, saying that Washington should pay the moving costs of American firms bringing manufacturing back from China."
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what China is looking forward to, but China does indeed have a plan to go it alone as well, though that may end up putting the West collectively against China and its authoritarian allies, especially including Russia. Personally, the West should exit China and set up a completely different system of governance eschewing the UN, which has been lately tainted by China.
I'm guessing that you will still side with China.
Whatever you want but the point was, does China desperately need Apple?
No. It doesn't.
Okay, lets see how it works out when the West gets its major brands shifting supply chains outside of China. I'm sure that all of those out of work Chinese will be really happy with the Chinese Government, as you seem to be.
That is a completely different issue and referenced by me when I said China needs business.
The point however, is not that, but the utterly absurd claim that China 'desperately needs Apple' .
Obviously it doesn't, and how such a claim came to be made is utterly mindboggling.
As for your claim now. Yes, that would have an effect but that situation swings in every direction. We are all interdependent to a point.
If China dumped Boeing for Airbus, the U.S would enter immediate crisis mode. We are talking trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades. That would be a decision relating to just one company and that trade cannot go elsewhere (well, except the void!) and Boeing is not in great shape right now. Idem, many other industries. Take manufacturing out and you serve yourself on a plate to getting a poke in the eye. That's how trade works. Tit for tat and Apple's China business is anything but out of trade war woods right now.
I can tell you that there are rumours of China already implementing rip and replace strategy for U.S networking infrastructure with Cisco being the big loser. That, in retaliation to the situation of Huawei in the U.S. We have already seen the impact of lost farming trade through China taking agricultural trade elsewhere. A double whammy where Trump had to inject billions into the industry to keep it afloat (what was that line about state subsidies?) and saw U.S competitors like Brazil gleefully plugging the gaps. Just like with Boeing, where will the U.S sell those products without access to China? Don't think that others won't step in to substitute U.S industry. And as Trump has so many dear friends around the world....
By its very nature a pendulum swings over various points and what lies underneath it can shift.
You try to make a point about Boeing, when in fact, it is low oil prices that will cause problems for the aircraft industry in the long term. Low oil prices mean that inefficient aircraft will not be replaced as early as planned. Both Boeing and Airbus have huge backlogs, and China also has an nascent industry, though they rely on Western engine technology, as an example, CFM International's LEAP engine, to power their aircraft. The U.S. has considered banning those engines due to the advances that the Chinese could glean off of them for their military aircraft engines, which are considerably very limited compared to engines from Western manufacturers.
Tourism is going to get decimated until a vaccine arrives, and that is going to effect the aviation market for years to come, and less domestic and international flights will be required by the industry.
The Pandemic has been a wakeup call to the West wrt having so much critical supply chain in a single country, and the actions of the Chinese Government have created an environment where supply chain resilience requires diversity. I already posted the links to that.
It's true that China can survive without Apple, but Apple surviving without China, would be a massive loss for China when other major manufactures follow Apple's lead, in order to increase resilience and security of their global supply chains.
My point on Boeing is company related in the context of a trade war. It isn't about wider industry issues which by nature affect everyone.
Well the trade war is just a quaint memory now, isn't it.
Not at all.
Just like Apple and QC, more than kissing and making up, this is a truce. Both will bleed the other for all they can.
When Apple can break free of an obligation, it will.
Trump has no real deal to show for his trade war. If anything, he has seriously undermined U.S interests world-wide and cost U.S companies billions in lost revenues.
Not long ago there were rumours of further plans to curtail Huawei's access to chip foundries. No sooner had the rumour leaked than 'voices' made it crystal clear that China would not stand by and let that happen and that the reaction would sting.
Unfortunately both Huawei and Apple are very much wrapped up in this.
In the meantime COVID-19 has given Trump more than he can chew on and he has seemingly decided to focus on his re-election stakes which will ride more on the pandemic than the trade war with China.
You really can't give up on the whole QC / Apple spat. It's over, and the money flows like water for both parties.
You probably forget that Apple generates twice the revenue and eight times the profits of Huawei, all without government subsidies.
Comments
I'm going to revisit the scanning apps and see what's what as far as developer notes go when I get some free time. I downloaded one to try out with the Lidar and scanned my room, gives you a decent rough mesh of everything, but didn't try it close up. The app literally had a note in it saying to use the other one they developed with Face ID for better quality 3D scanning of objects, so guessing they had done some testing there.
I'm also wanting to try figuring out a setup for better scanning with the Face ID stuff, like using a tripod and a lazy Susan to rotate the object, and be able to get to a place where I can see the results on the screen as I do it, which is the main obstacle I was hoping to overcome. Not ideal for stuff in the field, but for home use it could work.
Huawei is not China.
It is ironic that you are quoting a former spy. Perhaps laughable is a more appropriate adjective. Could be that this guy isn't actually worried about spying at all and is simply worried that China might take a lead in that area?
National security? Whose? He obviously had no qualms about the national security of those he was spying on!
Anyway, more than thirty years of activity worldwide and still not a major security incident on Huawei's record. Perhaps that trust earned, along with better technology, better prices and better strategic planning is why nations still allow their ICT companies to use them - in spite of all the chest thumping by the U.S administration.
Of course the lack of evidence hasn't gone unnoticed.
In fact most of the world recently looked on in utter amazement as Mr. Pompro made headlines by proclaiming that:
"I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan.”
and
"Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was manmade. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point. "
However, when he was reminded that his very own experts had formally stated that U.S scientific consensus was that the virus was not manmade or genetically modified, he said:
“That’s right. I agree with that"
Do you really think this administration has any credibility left?
How about dealing with the article now?
Someone made outright absurd claims and I challenged them with reasoned comments (comments which I often let go unchallenged) . You clearly have nothing to debate on that point in spite of your blustering. Those who read this will draw their own conclusions on where the reality lies.
You disagreed on that, and responded with no evidence otherwise.
So I state again, Huawei is a State Owned Enterprise, and that has everything to do with National Security concerns. More to the point, Huawei is also involved in surveillance and AI face recognition, notably of minorities Uyghurs in detention camps in Xinjiang. You have stated as much yourself. National Security is about risk mitigation, not proof of harm, though there have been enough National Security breaches in countries served by Huawei as proof enough.
The latest article on Uyghurs;
https://www.wired.com/story/xinjiang-uyghur-culture-tourism/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/04/18/huawei-hit-by-china-backlash-2020-just-got-much-worse-heres-why/#2066a6535dcb
"We saw this last year with Xinjiang. Huawei has always maintained that sales of its technology into the surveillance state targeting China’s Uighur Muslim minority were through third-parties—it had no direct engagement. This was refuted by a new report that claimed Huawei was much more closely and directly involved.
As I’ve said before, my expectation is that Huawei would like nothing more than to exit Xinjiang and avoid any reputational risk overseas. This is a political trap for the company, recognizing how contentious this is as an issue, but with its increasing reliance on Beijing’s support to survive U.S. sanctions, being unable to risk contradicting the government’s public stance on Xinjiang."
As for the problems in our own government, we at least have the possibilities of elections to look forward to. The Chinese people do not.
It has also been noted that similar laws also exist in other countries (U.S included) or could be passed easily.
As if that weren't enough Huawei has gone on record as stating it would not comply even if asked, and has offered to set that in its contractual obligations with different customers/governments.
And as if that wasn't enough, ALL Huawei user data is subject to local laws wherever they operate. Hence ALL EU user data is stored within the EU by a separate company.
And as if that wasn't enough, no other ICT company on the planet suffers the same scrutiny as Huawei. Right down to the source code.
The network equipment Huawei supplies is managed by the owners of the equipment: the carriers. More have chosen Huawei than any other provider.
I think we can be sure that the experts within those companies understand what they are doing and the universal risks involved. Those risks that apply to all vendors but none of them receive the same scrutiny as Huawei.
Yes. It is rhetoric.
National Security is based on risk assessment, and given Huawei's close ties to the CCP, the risk of Huawei's involvement in the UK's telecom infrastructure is too high for the other Five Eye members, so the U.S. is threatening an Intelligence disconnect if the UK goes through with allowing Huawei into their infrastructure. It is also the case that Huawei worked directly for the Chinese Government on Surveillance systems in the Xin Jiang province, something that they stated that they didn't do.
The UK is overly focused on BT saving a few billion euros, and not offending China, who is about the only country that the UK hasn't yet fucked up its trade with, but should. More to the point, Huawei has been subsidized by the Chinese Government so that they can undercut 5G from European Companies. I mean, what the fuck is that about?
Supposedly, it's all in the name of competition, which the EU is always talking about, but never seems able to implement without cutting down EU based companies.
The rest is just blustering with zero evidence to back it up.
Those national security risks have always existed and are not limited to Huawei.
Is China a spying risk? Yep
Is the U.S a spying risk? Yep
Is the UK a spying risk? Yep
Huawei provides the technology. The carriers manage it. They have evaluated all the risks. Universal risks.
That is literally all there is to it (until the U.S puts its evidence on the table and in that case its game over for Huawei - instant death).
Now. In the absence of that evidence it is reasonable to assume it simply doesn't exist.
Just like it is reasonable to assume that Huawei doesn't want to die an instant death and therefore is not the national security risk the U.S says it is. Makes plenty of sense to me especially as its track record stands firm while the U.S flounders in its efforts to put any evidence whatsoever on the table and has failed time and again in this field. Last week's Covid-19 claims being just the latest in a long line of accusations that are based on literally nothing. Any wonder no one takes Trump seriously and he has to bully everyone?
Can we get back on topic now?
National Security is about risk. It isn't a legal case, and in fact, the WTO allows countries wide latitude when it comes to their National Security interests.
LOL
You can get back on topic by not replying to me. That's just so very easy for you to do.
https://www.axios.com/beijing-demanded-praise-in-exchange-for-medical-supplies-16f5183e-589a-42e5-bc25-414eb13841b0.html
"A growing number of reports indicate Chinese officials pushed their counterparts in Europe to make positive statements about China in order to receive shipments of medical supplies to fight the novel coronavirus.
Why it matters: The revelations further taint Beijing's attempts to portray itself as a responsible and trustworthy leader in global public health.
Context: Over the past two months, numerous high-ranking government officials from countries fighting coronavirus outbreaks have offered seemingly effusive praise to China for its assistance.
What's happening: Officials in some countries are now saying there was pressure to praise Beijing.
Poland: In exchange for medical supplies, Chinese officials pressuredPolish President Andrzej Duda to call Chinese President Xi Jinping to express gratitude
Germany: German officials have been approached by Chinese counterparts trying to get them to make positive public statements about China’s coronavirus response and international assistance, according to German newspaper Die Welt Am Sonntag.
What they're saying: “What is most striking to me is the extent to which the Chinese government appears to be demanding public displays of gratitude from other countries; this is certainly not in the tradition of the best humanitarian relief efforts," Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations told the Times.
The big picture: A quid pro quo for vital medical aid alienates global audiences who had at first been inclined to welcome Chinese Communist Party leadership in the fight against the coronavirus.
- "The fairly aggressive party-state effort to 'tell a good China story' actually increases public awareness that these propaganda efforts on the Chinese side are going on," Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Berlin, told Axios.
- "They are shooting themselves in the foot by being so pushy on this."
Yeah, trust the Chinese Government, not.Yes I answered you point. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes. Countries use their influence over other countries. Part and parcel of foreign affairs. There are limits of course before pushback occurs or something worse.
Just remind me why Trump got impeached!
Now, my main contention with the article was that China did not desperately need Apple. It wasn't about national security.
China needs these major brands in order to attract the multitudes of lesser brands. Apple moving AirPod production to Viet Nam isn't the end of the world for China, but it is a feather in the cap for Viet Nam. China bullying countries just makes it easier for companies to look places other than China, or to withdraw existing manufacturing.
More to the point, many companies are worried about being connected with forced labor, which is how many Uyrghurs are being used in China.
Personally, I would like to see Apple accelerate disengagement from China, but those countries that would be suitable for production, are generally also authoritarian. Still, Apple would be better off dispersing its manufacturing to more countries.
Of course the U.S trade deficit is with the world not just China.
China doesn't desperately need any particular company in any particular order although it obviously has Huawei, not only as the national champion, but also as a forerunner in what many see as the next industrial revolution with China seeking to make good use of that revolution. Hence the moves by the U.S to reduce China's growing influence in key strategic technology areas.
Of the three mentioned (Huawei, Apple and Tesla) it could easily do without Tesla and Apple as neither of them are key players for China's future.
However, both still bring in advantages, just like thousands of other domestic and foreign companies.
On the other hand, both need China and Tim Cook has actually defended Apple's need to be in China because of the benefits it offers in industrial terms and consumer revenue terms. Going so far as to point out that it would be difficult to move operations elsewhere and we have all seen the negative impact on Apple when things slow down for them in China. No doubt representatives of both companies and others such as Boeing have lobbied Trump keep him reigned in. You mention Tesla and it isn't a coincidence that China is going to be the world's largest market for electric vehicles (if it isn't already).
Sound business reasons to want to be in that market but in no way does China desperately need Apple.
But China expansionism is exactly what it is, and it doesn't bode well for the world.
More to the point, China can not be trusted, nor can its companies.
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3081415/coronavirus-china-faces-fight-hang-foreign-manufacturers-us
"This is the first in a series of five stories exploring the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic. The first story examines the push by foreign powers to bring home production of some goods, particularly vital medical equipment and medicines, due to an overreliance on China exposed by the pandemic.
Over the space of two weeks, powerful figures from three of the world’s four largest economies have publicly announced or discussed plans to lure their countries out of China, with such rhetoric finding growing support after the supply shock caused by China’s coronavirus shutdown.
On Tuesday, European Union trade commissioner Phil Hogan said the bloc would seek to “reduce our trade dependencies” after the pandemic, Politico reported.
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what China is looking forward to, but China does indeed have a plan to go it alone as well, though that may end up putting the West collectively against China and its authoritarian allies, especially including Russia. Personally, the West should exit China and set up a completely different system of governance eschewing the UN, which has been lately tainted by China.
I'm guessing that you will still side with China.
No. It doesn't.
The point however, is not that, but the utterly absurd claim that China 'desperately needs Apple' .
Obviously it doesn't, and how such a claim came to be made is utterly mindboggling.
As for your claim now. Yes, that would have an effect but that situation swings in every direction. We are all interdependent to a point.
If China dumped Boeing for Airbus, the U.S would enter immediate crisis mode. We are talking trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades. That would be a decision relating to just one company and that trade cannot go elsewhere (well, except the void!) and Boeing is not in great shape right now. Idem, many other industries. Take manufacturing out and you serve yourself on a plate to getting a poke in the eye. That's how trade works. Tit for tat and Apple's China business is anything but out of trade war woods right now.
I can tell you that there are rumours of China already implementing rip and replace strategy for U.S networking infrastructure with Cisco being the big loser. That, in retaliation to the situation of Huawei in the U.S. We have already seen the impact of lost farming trade through China taking agricultural trade elsewhere. A double whammy where Trump had to inject billions into the industry to keep it afloat (what was that line about state subsidies?) and saw U.S competitors like Brazil gleefully plugging the gaps. Just like with Boeing, where will the U.S sell those products without access to China? Don't think that others won't step in to substitute U.S industry. And as Trump has so many dear friends around the world....
By its very nature a pendulum swings over various points and what lies underneath it can shift.
Tourism is going to get decimated until a vaccine arrives, and that is going to effect the aviation market for years to come, and less domestic and international flights will be required by the industry.
The Pandemic has been a wakeup call to the West wrt having so much critical supply chain in a single country, and the actions of the Chinese Government have created an environment where supply chain resilience requires diversity. I already posted the links to that.
It's true that China can survive without Apple, but Apple surviving without China, would be a massive loss for China when other major manufacturers follow Apple's lead, in order to increase resilience and security of their global supply chains.
As for China ripping out U.S. telecom equipment, that is their decision to make, certainly no different than what the U.S. is calling for the UK to do with Huawei and ZTE equipment.
The situation in farm trade has been coopted by the pandemic, in case you weren't aware, and for all practical purposes, the trade issues with China, and future trade negotiations, are off the table. Either way, trade realignments worldwide do not favor China.
Just like Apple and QC, more than kissing and making up, this is a truce. Both will bleed the other for all they can.
When Apple can break free of an obligation, it will.
Trump has no real deal to show for his trade war. If anything, he has seriously undermined U.S interests world-wide and cost U.S companies billions in lost revenues.
Not long ago there were rumours of further plans to curtail Huawei's access to chip foundries. No sooner had the rumour leaked than 'voices' made it crystal clear that China would not stand by and let that happen and that the reaction would sting.
Unfortunately both Huawei and Apple are very much wrapped up in this.
In the meantime COVID-19 has given Trump more than he can chew on and he has seemingly decided to focus on his re-election stakes which will ride more on the pandemic than the trade war with China.
You probably forget that Apple generates twice the revenue and eight times the profits of Huawei, all without government subsidies.