What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
If they had done 'fine' on iPhone, the SE wouldn't have been released last month. Prices wouldn't have been adjusted down over the last two years either. There would have been no profit warning etc.
They moved from units shipped to installed base. Looks like that installed base was ageing badly and risked not being comfortably available to Apple's services arm. That's not a good situation to be in. Unable to increase sales and unable to maximise the services pool.
A valid option was the SE. I support that move. Time will tell if it pays off but IMO, 'doing fine' isn't the case here.
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
If they had done 'fine' on iPhone, the SE wouldn't have been released last month. Prices wouldn't have been adjusted down over the last two years either. There would have been no profit warning etc.
They moved from units shipped to installed base. Looks like that installed base was ageing badly and risked not being comfortably available to Apple's services arm. That's not a good situation to be in. Unable to increase sales and unable to maximise the services pool.
A valid option was the SE. I support that move. Time will tell if it pays off but IMO, 'doing fine' isn't the case here.
LOL.
You just can't accept that Apple's iPhone business model is so superior to Huawei's, that adding a revised SE every fourth year, is some kind of capitulation. I mean, Huawei must build hundreds of different models each year, and I do agree that they sold about 20% more units last year, yet they aren't even close to Apple's iPhone revenue, not to mention their ASP's, margins, and profits.
But certainly you call that a win for Huawei, each and every fucking time, because "consumers don't care about ASP, margins, or profit".
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
The Wall Street Journal article received a stinging retort from Huawei.
It receives government support. It is a common practice worldwide. Not something reserved for China or even Chinese businesses. If you qualify you are entitled to the 'subsidy' which can have many forms.
Some are investigated. Some end up in court.
Look no further than the case of Apple in Ireland and the state aid accusations.
So, just like every elegible company in China (and this includes foreign companies), grants and subsidies are available to them.
Huawei states that over 90% of its funding is derived from its own revenues and other (non governmental) entities. All in line with the law. In some cases it is higher than 99% of its financial activity. It also states that every year it reinvests between 10% and 15% of its revenues in R&D. More than $4 billion in 5G alone. Obviously having Huawei on hand for 5G, China prefers that option. Through its own lack of foresight, the U.S has no such option and while it criticises China subsidies while doling out its very own to shore up U.S industry it even went as far as considering a multi billion dollar financial aid package (read subsidy) to non-US Huawei competitors!
Now, that is a sign of pure desperation. Followed up by another crackpot idea to take a majority stake in Nokia or Ericsson. The mind boggles! Now they want to 'open source' 5G. Just hopping from one crackpot idea to another.
Sadly, the WSJ, to cite just one U.S outlet, has gained itself a reputation for putting out some very poorly presented articles which many claim are outright manipulations of the facts.
Definitely, the reporting on Huawei has been far from balanced and as a result some academics have made their opinions known.
Remember, the agreement between the two companies goes to 2025 and may be continued with 2 year extensions. This “marriage of convenience” will last a while.
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
The Wall Street Journal article received a stinging retort from Huawei.
It receives government support. It is a common practice worldwide. Not something reserved for China or even Chinese businesses. If you qualify you are entitled to the 'subsidy' which can have many forms.
Some are investigated. Some end up in court.
Look no further than the case of Apple in Ireland and the state aid accusations.
So, just like every elegible company in China (and this includes foreign companies), grants and subsidies are available to them.
Huawei states that over 90% of its funding is derived from its own revenues and other (non governmental) entities. All in line with the law. In some cases it is higher than 99% of its financial activity. It also states that every year it reinvests between 10% and 15% of its revenues in R&D. More than $4 billion in 5G alone. Obviously having Huawei on hand for 5G, China prefers that option. Through its own lack of foresight, the U.S has no such option and while it criticises China subsidies while doling out its very own to shore up U.S industry it even went as far as considering a multi billion dollar financial aid package (read subsidy) to non-US Huawei competitors!
Now, that is a sign of pure desperation. Followed up by another crackpot idea to take a majority stake in Nokia or Ericsson. The mind boggles! Now they want to 'open source' 5G. Just hopping from one crackpot idea to another.
Sadly, the WSJ, to cite just one U.S outlet, has gained itself a reputation for putting out some very poorly presented articles which many claim are outright manipulations of the facts.
Definitely, the reporting on Huawei has been far from balanced and as a result some academics have made their opinions known.
China’s tech champion got as much as $75 billion in tax breaks, financing and cheap resources as it became the world’s top telecom vendor
So, Huawei isn't a company that can be audited like a U.S. Company, because it is "private", but you believe that Huawei is separate from the CCP, and given how Huawei lies about its government connections, I can't believe a thing that they state.
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
The Wall Street Journal article received a stinging retort from Huawei.
It receives government support. It is a common practice worldwide. Not something reserved for China or even Chinese businesses. If you qualify you are entitled to the 'subsidy' which can have many forms.
Some are investigated. Some end up in court.
Look no further than the case of Apple in Ireland and the state aid accusations.
So, just like every elegible company in China (and this includes foreign companies), grants and subsidies are available to them.
Huawei states that over 90% of its funding is derived from its own revenues and other (non governmental) entities. All in line with the law. In some cases it is higher than 99% of its financial activity. It also states that every year it reinvests between 10% and 15% of its revenues in R&D. More than $4 billion in 5G alone. Obviously having Huawei on hand for 5G, China prefers that option. Through its own lack of foresight, the U.S has no such option and while it criticises China subsidies while doling out its very own to shore up U.S industry it even went as far as considering a multi billion dollar financial aid package (read subsidy) to non-US Huawei competitors!
Now, that is a sign of pure desperation. Followed up by another crackpot idea to take a majority stake in Nokia or Ericsson. The mind boggles! Now they want to 'open source' 5G. Just hopping from one crackpot idea to another.
Sadly, the WSJ, to cite just one U.S outlet, has gained itself a reputation for putting out some very poorly presented articles which many claim are outright manipulations of the facts.
Definitely, the reporting on Huawei has been far from balanced and as a result some academics have made their opinions known.
China’s tech champion got as much as $75 billion in tax breaks, financing and cheap resources as it became the world’s top telecom vendor
So, Huawei isn't a company that can be audited like a U.S. Company, because it is "private", but you believe that Huawei is separate from the CCP, and given how Huawei lies about its government connections, I can't believe a thing that they state.
Yeah, Airbus and Boeing are both subsidized, but your link is a total joke;
CGTN.
China Global Television Network
Fuck All! That's China State Television you linked to; not so independent a source is it.
It is not the source that is important here. It is an opinion piece. The source is irrelevant. The source is not giving the news. It is giving someone's opinion.
Is that opinion a reflection of reality?
Do you think such an opinion would be cleared to appear in one of the named publications?
Yes. That is the article that drew a swift slap from Huawei.
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
The Wall Street Journal article received a stinging retort from Huawei.
It receives government support. It is a common practice worldwide. Not something reserved for China or even Chinese businesses. If you qualify you are entitled to the 'subsidy' which can have many forms.
Some are investigated. Some end up in court.
Look no further than the case of Apple in Ireland and the state aid accusations.
So, just like every elegible company in China (and this includes foreign companies), grants and subsidies are available to them.
Huawei states that over 90% of its funding is derived from its own revenues and other (non governmental) entities. All in line with the law. In some cases it is higher than 99% of its financial activity. It also states that every year it reinvests between 10% and 15% of its revenues in R&D. More than $4 billion in 5G alone. Obviously having Huawei on hand for 5G, China prefers that option. Through its own lack of foresight, the U.S has no such option and while it criticises China subsidies while doling out its very own to shore up U.S industry it even went as far as considering a multi billion dollar financial aid package (read subsidy) to non-US Huawei competitors!
Now, that is a sign of pure desperation. Followed up by another crackpot idea to take a majority stake in Nokia or Ericsson. The mind boggles! Now they want to 'open source' 5G. Just hopping from one crackpot idea to another.
Sadly, the WSJ, to cite just one U.S outlet, has gained itself a reputation for putting out some very poorly presented articles which many claim are outright manipulations of the facts.
Definitely, the reporting on Huawei has been far from balanced and as a result some academics have made their opinions known.
China’s tech champion got as much as $75 billion in tax breaks, financing and cheap resources as it became the world’s top telecom vendor
So, Huawei isn't a company that can be audited like a U.S. Company, because it is "private", but you believe that Huawei is separate from the CCP, and given how Huawei lies about its government connections, I can't believe a thing that they state.
Yeah, Airbus and Boeing are both subsidized, but your link is a total joke;
CGTN.
China Global Television Network
Fuck All! That's China State Television you linked to; not so independent a source is it.
It is not the source that is important here. It is an opinion piece. The source is irrelevant. The source is not giving the news. It is giving someone's opinion.
Is that opinion a reflection of reality?
Do you think such an opinion would be cleared to appear in one of the named publications?
Yes. That is the article that drew a swift slap from Huawei.
You will defend Huawei and China until the very end.
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
The Wall Street Journal article received a stinging retort from Huawei.
It receives government support. It is a common practice worldwide. Not something reserved for China or even Chinese businesses. If you qualify you are entitled to the 'subsidy' which can have many forms.
Some are investigated. Some end up in court.
Look no further than the case of Apple in Ireland and the state aid accusations.
So, just like every elegible company in China (and this includes foreign companies), grants and subsidies are available to them.
Huawei states that over 90% of its funding is derived from its own revenues and other (non governmental) entities. All in line with the law. In some cases it is higher than 99% of its financial activity. It also states that every year it reinvests between 10% and 15% of its revenues in R&D. More than $4 billion in 5G alone. Obviously having Huawei on hand for 5G, China prefers that option. Through its own lack of foresight, the U.S has no such option and while it criticises China subsidies while doling out its very own to shore up U.S industry it even went as far as considering a multi billion dollar financial aid package (read subsidy) to non-US Huawei competitors!
Now, that is a sign of pure desperation. Followed up by another crackpot idea to take a majority stake in Nokia or Ericsson. The mind boggles! Now they want to 'open source' 5G. Just hopping from one crackpot idea to another.
Sadly, the WSJ, to cite just one U.S outlet, has gained itself a reputation for putting out some very poorly presented articles which many claim are outright manipulations of the facts.
Definitely, the reporting on Huawei has been far from balanced and as a result some academics have made their opinions known.
China’s tech champion got as much as $75 billion in tax breaks, financing and cheap resources as it became the world’s top telecom vendor
So, Huawei isn't a company that can be audited like a U.S. Company, because it is "private", but you believe that Huawei is separate from the CCP, and given how Huawei lies about its government connections, I can't believe a thing that they state.
Yeah, Airbus and Boeing are both subsidized, but your link is a total joke;
CGTN.
China Global Television Network
Fuck All! That's China State Television you linked to; not so independent a source is it.
It is not the source that is important here. It is an opinion piece. The source is irrelevant. The source is not giving the news. It is giving someone's opinion.
Is that opinion a reflection of reality?
Do you think such an opinion would be cleared to appear in one of the named publications?
Yes. That is the article that drew a swift slap from Huawei.
"EU member states should adopt a unitary interpretation of the toolbox. A complete ban on Huawei from the rollout of European 5G might not be necessary, but the EU and its member states should strive for a significant reduction in Huawei’s market share."
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
The Wall Street Journal article received a stinging retort from Huawei.
It receives government support. It is a common practice worldwide. Not something reserved for China or even Chinese businesses. If you qualify you are entitled to the 'subsidy' which can have many forms.
Some are investigated. Some end up in court.
Look no further than the case of Apple in Ireland and the state aid accusations.
So, just like every elegible company in China (and this includes foreign companies), grants and subsidies are available to them.
Huawei states that over 90% of its funding is derived from its own revenues and other (non governmental) entities. All in line with the law. In some cases it is higher than 99% of its financial activity. It also states that every year it reinvests between 10% and 15% of its revenues in R&D. More than $4 billion in 5G alone. Obviously having Huawei on hand for 5G, China prefers that option. Through its own lack of foresight, the U.S has no such option and while it criticises China subsidies while doling out its very own to shore up U.S industry it even went as far as considering a multi billion dollar financial aid package (read subsidy) to non-US Huawei competitors!
Now, that is a sign of pure desperation. Followed up by another crackpot idea to take a majority stake in Nokia or Ericsson. The mind boggles! Now they want to 'open source' 5G. Just hopping from one crackpot idea to another.
Sadly, the WSJ, to cite just one U.S outlet, has gained itself a reputation for putting out some very poorly presented articles which many claim are outright manipulations of the facts.
Definitely, the reporting on Huawei has been far from balanced and as a result some academics have made their opinions known.
China’s tech champion got as much as $75 billion in tax breaks, financing and cheap resources as it became the world’s top telecom vendor
So, Huawei isn't a company that can be audited like a U.S. Company, because it is "private", but you believe that Huawei is separate from the CCP, and given how Huawei lies about its government connections, I can't believe a thing that they state.
Yeah, Airbus and Boeing are both subsidized, but your link is a total joke;
CGTN.
China Global Television Network
Fuck All! That's China State Television you linked to; not so independent a source is it.
It is not the source that is important here. It is an opinion piece. The source is irrelevant. The source is not giving the news. It is giving someone's opinion.
Is that opinion a reflection of reality?
Do you think such an opinion would be cleared to appear in one of the named publications?
Yes. That is the article that drew a swift slap from Huawei.
"EU member states should adopt a unitary interpretation of the toolbox. A complete ban on Huawei from the rollout of European 5G might not be necessary, but the EU and its member states should strive for a significant reduction in Huawei’s market share."
You might try reading it.
No time to read through it all and as soon as I saw references like 'if I am right' my eyes rolled and any desire to finish it wained.
More of same.
Funnily though, in the first few pages he seems to debunk Trumps biggest claims of Huawei being a technological security risk as he moves the puck to geopolitics and that area is a quagmire to start with.
Anyhow, you didn't respond to my comment on the opinion piece.
How could an opinion piece be worth less based on where it is published?
If that piece had been published in any of 'big three' would it have miraculously meant something different?
No need to answer that of course. Your viewpoint is clear.
It's also clear that this has zippo to do with QC or Apple so better to let it go. Although I see you posted the same link in another thread too.
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
The Wall Street Journal article received a stinging retort from Huawei.
It receives government support. It is a common practice worldwide. Not something reserved for China or even Chinese businesses. If you qualify you are entitled to the 'subsidy' which can have many forms.
Some are investigated. Some end up in court.
Look no further than the case of Apple in Ireland and the state aid accusations.
So, just like every elegible company in China (and this includes foreign companies), grants and subsidies are available to them.
Huawei states that over 90% of its funding is derived from its own revenues and other (non governmental) entities. All in line with the law. In some cases it is higher than 99% of its financial activity. It also states that every year it reinvests between 10% and 15% of its revenues in R&D. More than $4 billion in 5G alone. Obviously having Huawei on hand for 5G, China prefers that option. Through its own lack of foresight, the U.S has no such option and while it criticises China subsidies while doling out its very own to shore up U.S industry it even went as far as considering a multi billion dollar financial aid package (read subsidy) to non-US Huawei competitors!
Now, that is a sign of pure desperation. Followed up by another crackpot idea to take a majority stake in Nokia or Ericsson. The mind boggles! Now they want to 'open source' 5G. Just hopping from one crackpot idea to another.
Sadly, the WSJ, to cite just one U.S outlet, has gained itself a reputation for putting out some very poorly presented articles which many claim are outright manipulations of the facts.
Definitely, the reporting on Huawei has been far from balanced and as a result some academics have made their opinions known.
China’s tech champion got as much as $75 billion in tax breaks, financing and cheap resources as it became the world’s top telecom vendor
So, Huawei isn't a company that can be audited like a U.S. Company, because it is "private", but you believe that Huawei is separate from the CCP, and given how Huawei lies about its government connections, I can't believe a thing that they state.
Yeah, Airbus and Boeing are both subsidized, but your link is a total joke;
CGTN.
China Global Television Network
Fuck All! That's China State Television you linked to; not so independent a source is it.
It is not the source that is important here. It is an opinion piece. The source is irrelevant. The source is not giving the news. It is giving someone's opinion.
Is that opinion a reflection of reality?
Do you think such an opinion would be cleared to appear in one of the named publications?
Yes. That is the article that drew a swift slap from Huawei.
"EU member states should adopt a unitary interpretation of the toolbox. A complete ban on Huawei from the rollout of European 5G might not be necessary, but the EU and its member states should strive for a significant reduction in Huawei’s market share."
You might try reading it.
No time to read through it all and as soon as I saw references like 'if I am right' my eyes rolled and any desire to finish it wained.
More of same.
Funnily though, in the first few pages he seems to debunk Trumps biggest claims of Huawei being a technological security risk as he moves the puck to geopolitics and that area is a quagmire to start with.
Anyhow, you didn't respond to my comment on the opinion piece.
How could an opinion piece be worth less based on where it is published?
If that piece had been published in any of 'big three' would it have miraculously meant something different?
No need to answer that of course. Your viewpoint is clear.
It's also clear that this has zippo to do with QC or Apple so better to let it go. Although I see you posted the same link in another thread too.
Like I stated, the EU is already looking at distancing themselves from China and Huawei.
Sure that has "zippo" to do with China, but everything to do with Apple and QC,
So, once Apple gets their 5G modem integrated on chip, they will own the most performant SOC stack of anyone in the smartphone industry, and that includes Huawei.
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
The Wall Street Journal article received a stinging retort from Huawei.
It receives government support. It is a common practice worldwide. Not something reserved for China or even Chinese businesses. If you qualify you are entitled to the 'subsidy' which can have many forms.
Some are investigated. Some end up in court.
Look no further than the case of Apple in Ireland and the state aid accusations.
So, just like every elegible company in China (and this includes foreign companies), grants and subsidies are available to them.
Huawei states that over 90% of its funding is derived from its own revenues and other (non governmental) entities. All in line with the law. In some cases it is higher than 99% of its financial activity. It also states that every year it reinvests between 10% and 15% of its revenues in R&D. More than $4 billion in 5G alone. Obviously having Huawei on hand for 5G, China prefers that option. Through its own lack of foresight, the U.S has no such option and while it criticises China subsidies while doling out its very own to shore up U.S industry it even went as far as considering a multi billion dollar financial aid package (read subsidy) to non-US Huawei competitors!
Now, that is a sign of pure desperation. Followed up by another crackpot idea to take a majority stake in Nokia or Ericsson. The mind boggles! Now they want to 'open source' 5G. Just hopping from one crackpot idea to another.
Sadly, the WSJ, to cite just one U.S outlet, has gained itself a reputation for putting out some very poorly presented articles which many claim are outright manipulations of the facts.
Definitely, the reporting on Huawei has been far from balanced and as a result some academics have made their opinions known.
China’s tech champion got as much as $75 billion in tax breaks, financing and cheap resources as it became the world’s top telecom vendor
So, Huawei isn't a company that can be audited like a U.S. Company, because it is "private", but you believe that Huawei is separate from the CCP, and given how Huawei lies about its government connections, I can't believe a thing that they state.
Yeah, Airbus and Boeing are both subsidized, but your link is a total joke;
CGTN.
China Global Television Network
Fuck All! That's China State Television you linked to; not so independent a source is it.
It is not the source that is important here. It is an opinion piece. The source is irrelevant. The source is not giving the news. It is giving someone's opinion.
Is that opinion a reflection of reality?
Do you think such an opinion would be cleared to appear in one of the named publications?
Yes. That is the article that drew a swift slap from Huawei.
"EU member states should adopt a unitary interpretation of the toolbox. A complete ban on Huawei from the rollout of European 5G might not be necessary, but the EU and its member states should strive for a significant reduction in Huawei’s market share."
You might try reading it.
No time to read through it all and as soon as I saw references like 'if I am right' my eyes rolled and any desire to finish it wained.
More of same.
Funnily though, in the first few pages he seems to debunk Trumps biggest claims of Huawei being a technological security risk as he moves the puck to geopolitics and that area is a quagmire to start with.
Anyhow, you didn't respond to my comment on the opinion piece.
How could an opinion piece be worth less based on where it is published?
If that piece had been published in any of 'big three' would it have miraculously meant something different?
No need to answer that of course. Your viewpoint is clear.
It's also clear that this has zippo to do with QC or Apple so better to let it go. Although I see you posted the same link in another thread too.
Like I stated, the EU is already looking at distancing themselves from China and Huawei.
Sure that has "zippo" to do with China, but everything to do with Apple and QC,
So, once Apple gets their 5G modem integrated on chip, they will own the most performant SOC stack of anyone in the smartphone industry, and that includes Huawei.
Isn't that what many have been claiming for years?
The problem has been when you actually look into things you see the devil is in the details and most 'performant SoC' (or whichever way you want to reference it) really only means CPU, and it has been years since you saw anyone complain about speed on flagships. And there lies the rub.
Firstly, there is no modem anywhere to be seen. No dual frequency GPS. WiFi not the fastest. ISP/DSP? How would you even go about evaluating their performance? Process node? Die size? Transistor count?
Just plain silly.
No. What users want goes far beyond the CPU when it comes to 'performance' and we have witnessed this over the last three or four years.
They want the best in many areas (not just CPU) . They want versatility.
And it is supremely arrogant of you to brush off competing SoCs before you have even seen them, moreso when right now Apple is still lacking in key areas (in spite of the recent improvements).
The wait for tri-cameras has been agonic. Eradicating that 5W charger has been even more agonic. Now that Apple seems to be regurgitating 'old' technology, so, who knows, maybe they'll reintroduce it across the entire line come September! ;-)
Where is that dual frequency GPS? Night Mode on the ultra-wide? Why do people comment on the noise in Apple's photos? Why does Huawei claim its late 2018 WiFi 5 is faster than Apple's 2020 Wi-Fi 6. How was it able to boost its own WiFi 6? Fast wireless charging? Reverse wireless charging? Alternative biometric options? Notchless options. Expandable storage? 3D small object modelling? ToF? Faster screen refresh times. Hey, 5G!
I'm seeing more than enough appeal on Android with their slower CPUs - because if you put them side by side with an iPhone virtually no sees a difference!
And a lot of that appeal is felt by iPhone users too. Apple should be upping its game in all the areas I mentioned. In fairness, the last refresh went a long way to fixing long-standing issues and together with the pricing adjustments, even I would have been far happier with the plain iPhone 11 than the XR.
Can you see why versatility is prized by many users? Not to mention price. It isn't all about the 'performant SoC' as you say.
Not even on the SE, because to be able to put that SoC on it, a lot got sacrificed in the process and from what I've been reading elsewhere, battery life isn't great either.
Yes, Apple will have 5G - towards the end of the year - and can thank QC squarely for that. Not having 5G this year would have been a disaster of epic proportions even if some people don't know what it even is and others say it won't reach their areas for years.
It is clearly (IMO at least) an agreement of convenience which will last what it lasts but at some point we will begin to hear about how desperate the parties may have been going into negotiations. Because a lot was at stake and you could probably taste the desperation in the air of the meeting where everything got hashed out.
What a clown. In the back of his mind... he knows. He knows that Apple will boot QC out to the curb the first moment they get and it will be sudden, and quick. What he is doing is blowing smoke to keep the stock price up and retire before the hammer drops. That's what he is going for.
In the meantime Apple is scrambling to get its own modem off the ground in a market with intense competition and competitors who are far more likely to have an edge over Apple.
You never fail to editorialize about Apple's failings, but "scrambling" isn't what Apple is doing, and "intense" competition doesn't seem to have affected Apple in the marketplace. Of course, you fail to note that you are only ever talking of Apple's iPhone products, never their entire product line nor their ecosystem.
I imagine the Huawei is "scrambling" to replace Google Android OS, and I'm sure you will tell us what a wonderful competitor it will be, sometime in the future.
Apple won't be impacted by those so called competitors for the simple reason that most Apple iPhone users won't be switching, and will wait until what will be fully functional, second generation 5G arrives in the iPhone this fall.
In the meantime, Apple keeps expanding its SOC efforts, outdistancing its rivals, and at the same time, continues to add more specialized components to its product line, such as the U1.
Yes. Scrambling is very much the right word here. Huawei too, to replace GMS.
The difference between the two is that strategically Huawei was better prepared and its task was monumentally more difficult than Apple's. In fact, there is no real comparison here.
I’d like to know — what kind of drugs are you on? Do you microdose or just go all in? Asking for a friend.
Apple had to get a 5G modem. It had a lot hanging off that need. It was a huge deal, strategically speaking. That was Apple making a strategic error.
Huawei had over 130 companies cut out of its supply chain, had to develop an entirely new platform and populate it with the necessary hooks and services. It had to find component alternatives, develop, test and put them into mass production, all the while with the entire U.S government trying to blow it out of existence. It took a 10 billion dollar financial hit and and needed to invest billions more to be in the position it is today. It also had to deal with COVID-19 and keep critical infrastructure up around the world AND work out how to increase the capacities of carriers who were servicing people with massive spikes in their Internet usage both in the private and business realms. It brought a completely new OS to market with a raft of new consumer and business hardware - in less than 12 months. It has opened lines into new business and accelerated its plans.
Oh, and in spite of everything, it shipped 240 million phones in 2019.
If you think the two situations are even remotely comparable then it is you who has the problem.
How did they pull it off? Stategic planning.
Fuck off with the comments about Apple 5g. It hasn't been an issue since a year ago April.
You are the Typhoid Mary of misinformation, and you are just a propagandist.
Huawei had almost no problem ever finding components for its phones, it was it telecom and surveillance businesses that were effected, so stating shipments of phones has nothing to do with the supply chain for telecom. That said, Huawei will definitely not sell 240 million low ASP, low margin phones this year due to demand destruction. The only comparable issue with the phones is that the U.S. restricted Electronic Design Software which is necessary for the design of the latest SOC's, and that might be the reason that Huawei isn't tasking TMSC 5nm while Apple gets all of the first production.
The only thing that Huawei had to worry about wrt to phones is the Google Android OS, and its delusion to think that its new phone OS is comparable to Google Android, or iOS.
I'm at a loss to why you can't fully understand Apple's 5G modem woes.
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Apple solved its modem problem over a year ago, will have second generation modems this fall in iPhones, and for all of that, there has been, and will be, no lost marketshare of any consequence to competitors. You continue to want to argue about it, as if it means anything now.
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
The Wall Street Journal article received a stinging retort from Huawei.
It receives government support. It is a common practice worldwide. Not something reserved for China or even Chinese businesses. If you qualify you are entitled to the 'subsidy' which can have many forms.
Some are investigated. Some end up in court.
Look no further than the case of Apple in Ireland and the state aid accusations.
So, just like every elegible company in China (and this includes foreign companies), grants and subsidies are available to them.
Huawei states that over 90% of its funding is derived from its own revenues and other (non governmental) entities. All in line with the law. In some cases it is higher than 99% of its financial activity. It also states that every year it reinvests between 10% and 15% of its revenues in R&D. More than $4 billion in 5G alone. Obviously having Huawei on hand for 5G, China prefers that option. Through its own lack of foresight, the U.S has no such option and while it criticises China subsidies while doling out its very own to shore up U.S industry it even went as far as considering a multi billion dollar financial aid package (read subsidy) to non-US Huawei competitors!
Now, that is a sign of pure desperation. Followed up by another crackpot idea to take a majority stake in Nokia or Ericsson. The mind boggles! Now they want to 'open source' 5G. Just hopping from one crackpot idea to another.
Sadly, the WSJ, to cite just one U.S outlet, has gained itself a reputation for putting out some very poorly presented articles which many claim are outright manipulations of the facts.
Definitely, the reporting on Huawei has been far from balanced and as a result some academics have made their opinions known.
China’s tech champion got as much as $75 billion in tax breaks, financing and cheap resources as it became the world’s top telecom vendor
So, Huawei isn't a company that can be audited like a U.S. Company, because it is "private", but you believe that Huawei is separate from the CCP, and given how Huawei lies about its government connections, I can't believe a thing that they state.
Yeah, Airbus and Boeing are both subsidized, but your link is a total joke;
CGTN.
China Global Television Network
Fuck All! That's China State Television you linked to; not so independent a source is it.
It is not the source that is important here. It is an opinion piece. The source is irrelevant. The source is not giving the news. It is giving someone's opinion.
Is that opinion a reflection of reality?
Do you think such an opinion would be cleared to appear in one of the named publications?
Yes. That is the article that drew a swift slap from Huawei.
"EU member states should adopt a unitary interpretation of the toolbox. A complete ban on Huawei from the rollout of European 5G might not be necessary, but the EU and its member states should strive for a significant reduction in Huawei’s market share."
You might try reading it.
No time to read through it all and as soon as I saw references like 'if I am right' my eyes rolled and any desire to finish it wained.
More of same.
Funnily though, in the first few pages he seems to debunk Trumps biggest claims of Huawei being a technological security risk as he moves the puck to geopolitics and that area is a quagmire to start with.
Anyhow, you didn't respond to my comment on the opinion piece.
How could an opinion piece be worth less based on where it is published?
If that piece had been published in any of 'big three' would it have miraculously meant something different?
No need to answer that of course. Your viewpoint is clear.
It's also clear that this has zippo to do with QC or Apple so better to let it go. Although I see you posted the same link in another thread too.
Like I stated, the EU is already looking at distancing themselves from China and Huawei.
Sure that has "zippo" to do with China, but everything to do with Apple and QC,
So, once Apple gets their 5G modem integrated on chip, they will own the most performant SOC stack of anyone in the smartphone industry, and that includes Huawei.
Isn't that what many have been claiming for years?
The problem has been when you actually look into things you see the devil is in the details and most 'performant SoC' (or whichever way you want to reference it) really only means CPU, and it has been years since you saw anyone complain about speed on flagships. And there lies the rub.
Firstly, there is no modem anywhere to be seen. No dual frequency GPS. WiFi not the fastest. ISP/DSP? How would you even go about evaluating their performance? Process node? Die size? Transistor count?
Just plain silly.
No. What users want goes far beyond the CPU when it comes to 'performance' and we have witnessed this over the last three or four years.
They want the best in many areas (not just CPU) . They want versatility.
And it is supremely arrogant of you to brush off competing SoCs before you have even seen them, moreso when right now Apple is still lacking in key areas (in spite of the recent improvements).
The wait for tri-cameras has been agonic. Eradicating that 5W charger has been even more agonic. Now that Apple seems to be regurgitating 'old' technology, so, who knows, maybe they'll reintroduce it across the entire line come September! ;-)
Where is that dual frequency GPS? Night Mode on the ultra-wide? Why do people comment on the noise in Apple's photos? Why does Huawei claim its late 2018 WiFi 5 is faster than Apple's 2020 Wi-Fi 6. How was it able to boost its own WiFi 6? Fast wireless charging? Reverse wireless charging? Alternative biometric options? Notchless options. Expandable storage? 3D small object modelling? ToF? Faster screen refresh times. Hey, 5G!
I'm seeing more than enough appeal on Android with their slower CPUs - because if you put them side by side with an iPhone virtually no sees a difference!
And a lot of that appeal is felt by iPhone users too. Apple should be upping its game in all the areas I mentioned. In fairness, the last refresh went a long way to fixing long-standing issues and together with the pricing adjustments, even I would have been far happier with the plain iPhone 11 than the XR.
Can you see why versatility is prized by many users? Not to mention price. It isn't all about the 'performant SoC' as you say.
Not even on the SE, because to be able to put that SoC on it, a lot got sacrificed in the process and from what I've been reading elsewhere, battery life isn't great either.
Yes, Apple will have 5G - towards the end of the year - and can thank QC squarely for that. Not having 5G this year would have been a disaster of epic proportions even if some people don't know what it even is and others say it won't reach their areas for years.
It is clearly (IMO at least) an agreement of convenience which will last what it lasts but at some point we will begin to hear about how desperate the parties may have been going into negotiations. Because a lot was at stake and you could probably taste the desperation in the air of the meeting where everything got hashed out.
LOL.
I remember when you first got here, pushing Huawei's 970 and its neural engine, because it was ANNOUNCED FIRST, and then Apple delivers its A11 first to ship with a neural engine and Face ID in the iPhone X.
It's been behind on SOC performance, but hey, credit for all those extras that Huawei throws in to sell more models and units, and yet, Huawei is still half the revenue and a fifth of the margins of Apple's iPhone.
What a win for Huawei!
Oh, and all that extra performance means that people can keep their phones longer, per the linked article, and still be more performant than bleeding edge Android OS devices.
Comments
It is irrelevant that it has now secured a deal to use a 5G modem in a future iPhone. That isn't the point.
The point is that it doesn't have one now and had to go with QC and that that was the result of a huge strategic error. One that saw it abandon all QC litigation and enter a multi year agreement with the very company it was fighting against. A situation which will see it paying patent royalties to the same company well into the future (for its 5G patents).
You may argue that QC was also let off the hook and breathed a sigh of relief with regards to Apple but the underlying issue is, without this agreement, where would Apple source a 5G modem and what would the impact be? With intel failing to deliver a quality product and QC not an option due to Apple's litigation efforts, the only remaining option would have possibly been Samsung and, knowing Apple's predicament, Samsung would have driven a very hard bargain. MediaTek really doesn't have the capacity to satisfy Apple's volume needs. Who had more leverage here? And into the bargain QC secured modem sales to the tune of millions. I think QC will be smiling for a few years.
After all the effort to drag QC over the coals, do you really think Apple would have ceased all litigation on the very day of the start of court proceedings if intel hadn't failed to deliver? That is the key question here and I have made my view crystal clear. That is where the strategic error came into play. Apple would have taken this to its ultimate consequences. Forget the situation for iPhone 12.
Ultimately though, intel's failure and the consequences of not having 5G modem at this crucial point in time (2019-2022) left Apple scrambling to find a solution to the problem. The solution was QC but it came with consequences of its own.
As for your claims that Huawei had no problems sourcing components for phones, that is false. The difference is that they had been preparing for this for years and had stockpiled certain components. Strategic planning again.
However, having a plan is not the same as executing that plan. It was a massive undertaking. Far beyond anything Apple had to manage for its 5G modem which, in essence, boiled down to "hey, can you supply me with this amount of modems? Yes? Where do I sign. Now, where is my green tea?"
Seems like Apple did fine, and it didn't even make a dent in its cash.
More to the point, Apple now has piles of IP to work with. I wonder what we will see in the next five years?
I'm not sad about Huawei's misfortunes. They've had plenty of Chinese Government support for subsidies to attract 5G customers, and now the downside is that most Westen governments have soured on China, and many as well on Huawei.
Sad.
They moved from units shipped to installed base. Looks like that installed base was ageing badly and risked not being comfortably available to Apple's services arm. That's not a good situation to be in. Unable to increase sales and unable to maximise the services pool.
A valid option was the SE. I support that move. Time will tell if it pays off but IMO, 'doing fine' isn't the case here.
You just can't accept that Apple's iPhone business model is so superior to Huawei's, that adding a revised SE every fourth year, is some kind of capitulation. I mean, Huawei must build hundreds of different models each year, and I do agree that they sold about 20% more units last year, yet they aren't even close to Apple's iPhone revenue, not to mention their ASP's, margins, and profits.
But certainly you call that a win for Huawei, each and every fucking time, because "consumers don't care about ASP, margins, or profit".
It receives government support. It is a common practice worldwide. Not something reserved for China or even Chinese businesses. If you qualify you are entitled to the 'subsidy' which can have many forms.
Some are investigated. Some end up in court.
Look no further than the case of Apple in Ireland and the state aid accusations.
Or Boeing:
https://globalnews.ca/news/3773916/bombardier-boeing-subsidies/
So, just like every elegible company in China (and this includes foreign companies), grants and subsidies are available to them.
Huawei states that over 90% of its funding is derived from its own revenues and other (non governmental) entities. All in line with the law. In some cases it is higher than 99% of its financial activity. It also states that every year it reinvests between 10% and 15% of its revenues in R&D. More than $4 billion in 5G alone. Obviously having Huawei on hand for 5G, China prefers that option. Through its own lack of foresight, the U.S has no such option and while it criticises China subsidies while doling out its very own to shore up U.S industry it even went as far as considering a multi billion dollar financial aid package (read subsidy) to non-US Huawei competitors!
Now, that is a sign of pure desperation. Followed up by another crackpot idea to take a majority stake in Nokia or Ericsson. The mind boggles! Now they want to 'open source' 5G. Just hopping from one crackpot idea to another.
Sadly, the WSJ, to cite just one U.S outlet, has gained itself a reputation for putting out some very poorly presented articles which many claim are outright manipulations of the facts.
Definitely, the reporting on Huawei has been far from balanced and as a result some academics have made their opinions known.
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-27/Take-U-S-reporting-on-Huawei-with-a-bucket-of-salt-MLdyh2TIlO/index.html
Yes. Take things with a bucket of salt!
https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2019/04/16/qualcomm-and-apple-agree-drop-all-litigation
State Support Helped Fuel Huawei’s Global Rise
China’s tech champion got as much as $75 billion in tax breaks, financing and cheap resources as it became the world’s top telecom vendor
So, Huawei isn't a company that can be audited like a U.S. Company, because it is "private", but you believe that Huawei is separate from the CCP, and given how Huawei lies about its government connections, I can't believe a thing that they state.Where is the EU on unfair competition?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-usa-aircraft-wto/wto-says-us-failed-to-halt-state-tax-subsidy-for-boeing-idUSKCN1R923B
Yeah, Airbus and Boeing are both subsidized, but your link is a total joke;
CGTN.
China Global Television Network
Fuck All! That's China State Television you linked to; not so independent a source is it.
Is that opinion a reflection of reality?
Do you think such an opinion would be cleared to appear in one of the named publications?
Yes. That is the article that drew a swift slap from Huawei.
"EU member states should adopt a unitary interpretation of the toolbox. A complete ban on Huawei from the rollout of European 5G might not be necessary, but the EU and its member states should strive for a significant reduction in Huawei’s market share."
You might try reading it.
More of same.
Funnily though, in the first few pages he seems to debunk Trumps biggest claims of Huawei being a technological security risk as he moves the puck to geopolitics and that area is a quagmire to start with.
Anyhow, you didn't respond to my comment on the opinion piece.
How could an opinion piece be worth less based on where it is published?
If that piece had been published in any of 'big three' would it have miraculously meant something different?
No need to answer that of course. Your viewpoint is clear.
It's also clear that this has zippo to do with QC or Apple so better to let it go. Although I see you posted the same link in another thread too.
Sure that has "zippo" to do with China, but everything to do with Apple and QC,
As this does;
https://www.androidcentral.com/cheapest-iphone-has-more-powerful-processor-most-expensive-android-phone
So, once Apple gets their 5G modem integrated on chip, they will own the most performant SOC stack of anyone in the smartphone industry, and that includes Huawei.
The problem has been when you actually look into things you see the devil is in the details and most 'performant SoC' (or whichever way you want to reference it) really only means CPU, and it has been years since you saw anyone complain about speed on flagships. And there lies the rub.
Firstly, there is no modem anywhere to be seen. No dual frequency GPS. WiFi not the fastest. ISP/DSP? How would you even go about evaluating their performance? Process node? Die size? Transistor count?
Just plain silly.
No. What users want goes far beyond the CPU when it comes to 'performance' and we have witnessed this over the last three or four years.
They want the best in many areas (not just CPU) . They want versatility.
And it is supremely arrogant of you to brush off competing SoCs before you have even seen them, moreso when right now Apple is still lacking in key areas (in spite of the recent improvements).
The wait for tri-cameras has been agonic. Eradicating that 5W charger has been even more agonic. Now that Apple seems to be regurgitating 'old' technology, so, who knows, maybe they'll reintroduce it across the entire line come September! ;-)
Where is that dual frequency GPS? Night Mode on the ultra-wide? Why do people comment on the noise in Apple's photos? Why does Huawei claim its late 2018 WiFi 5 is faster than Apple's 2020 Wi-Fi 6. How was it able to boost its own WiFi 6? Fast wireless charging? Reverse wireless charging? Alternative biometric options? Notchless options. Expandable storage? 3D small object modelling? ToF? Faster screen refresh times. Hey, 5G!
I'm seeing more than enough appeal on Android with their slower CPUs - because if you put them side by side with an iPhone virtually no sees a difference!
And a lot of that appeal is felt by iPhone users too. Apple should be upping its game in all the areas I mentioned. In fairness, the last refresh went a long way to fixing long-standing issues and together with the pricing adjustments, even I would have been far happier with the plain iPhone 11 than the XR.
Can you see why versatility is prized by many users? Not to mention price. It isn't all about the 'performant SoC' as you say.
Not even on the SE, because to be able to put that SoC on it, a lot got sacrificed in the process and from what I've been reading elsewhere, battery life isn't great either.
Yes, Apple will have 5G - towards the end of the year - and can thank QC squarely for that. Not having 5G this year would have been a disaster of epic proportions even if some people don't know what it even is and others say it won't reach their areas for years.
It is clearly (IMO at least) an agreement of convenience which will last what it lasts but at some point we will begin to hear about how desperate the parties may have been going into negotiations. Because a lot was at stake and you could probably taste the desperation in the air of the meeting where everything got hashed out.
I remember when you first got here, pushing Huawei's 970 and its neural engine, because it was ANNOUNCED FIRST, and then Apple delivers its A11 first to ship with a neural engine and Face ID in the iPhone X.
It's been behind on SOC performance, but hey, credit for all those extras that Huawei throws in to sell more models and units, and yet, Huawei is still half the revenue and a fifth of the margins of Apple's iPhone.
What a win for Huawei!
Oh, and all that extra performance means that people can keep their phones longer, per the linked article, and still be more performant than bleeding edge Android OS devices.