I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
You can't understand why I and others are against Huawei in our critical infrastructure, and why it is a National Security risk, but here you are, talking about security of our critical infrastructure, but only with regards to IoT.
The U.S. needs secure manufacturing for leading edge ARM silicon, and while Taiwan is still independent of China (China disagrees with that), that may not always be the case. More to the point, why would the U.S. allow leading edge technology with dual purpose, military and civilian, to be readily available to our primary adversary?
No, we know WHY you are against Huawei. We just think its bullshit.
As for this particular case -- why worry about being self sufficient in one product if you need a dozen more just to make it work?. And, why would you choose a Chinese company if you are trying to secure yourself from China? That's silly.
TSMC isTaiwanese. Taiwan doesn't consider itself to be a part of China regardless of whether you do or not.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
You can't understand why I and others are against Huawei in our critical infrastructure, and why it is a National Security risk, but here you are, talking about security of our critical infrastructure, but only with regards to IoT.
The U.S. needs secure manufacturing for leading edge ARM silicon, and while Taiwan is still independent of China (China disagrees with that), that may not always be the case. More to the point, why would the U.S. allow leading edge technology with dual purpose, military and civilian, to be readily available to our primary adversary?
No, we know WHY you are against Huawei. We just think its bullshit.
As for this particular case -- why worry about being self sufficient in one product if you need a dozen more just to make it work?. And, why would you choose a Chinese company if you are trying to secure yourself from China? That's silly.
TSMC isTaiwanese. Taiwan doesn't consider itself to be a part of China regardless of whether you do or not.
The world knows that its part of China. It's only the Trumpers who haven't figured that out yet.
But, what makes this nonsense even more nonsensical: the world considers Taiwan a part of China -- which makes TSMC a Chinese company. So here we have Trump telling a Chinese company that he won't let them sell to another Chinese company!
Cramer is both a solid Trumper and a China hater. But even he was incredulous and his question was: "Are you crazy? Why would you pick a fight NOW?" And, I might add, an unwinnable fight -- just like his last. And the losers will be: Everybody but Trump.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
You can't understand why I and others are against Huawei in our critical infrastructure, and why it is a National Security risk, but here you are, talking about security of our critical infrastructure, but only with regards to IoT.
The U.S. needs secure manufacturing for leading edge ARM silicon, and while Taiwan is still independent of China (China disagrees with that), that may not always be the case. More to the point, why would the U.S. allow leading edge technology with dual purpose, military and civilian, to be readily available to our primary adversary?
No, we know WHY you are against Huawei. We just think its bullshit.
As for this particular case -- why worry about being self sufficient in one product if you need a dozen more just to make it work?. And, why would you choose a Chinese company if you are trying to secure yourself from China? That's silly.
TSMC isTaiwanese. Taiwan doesn't consider itself to be a part of China regardless of whether you do or not.
The world knows that its part of China. It's only the Trumpers who haven't figured that out yet.
But, what makes this nonsense even more nonsensical: the world considers Taiwan a part of China -- which makes TSMC a Chinese company. So here we have Trump telling a Chinese company that he won't let them sell to another Chinese company!
Cramer is both a solid Trumper and a China hater. But even he was incredulous and his question was: "Are you crazy? Why would you pick a fight NOW?" And, I might add, an unwinnable fight -- just like his last. And the losers will be: Everybody but Trump.
China has "title" to it, but doesn't have any control of the government, people, or companies, and Taiwan's military is configured to repel a Chinese invasion. Many Western nations might support a military intervention to prevent China from taking Taiwan, but as China's military power grows, that look less likely, so the matter continues in limbo.
Still, you are technically incorrect that China owns TMSC, since China does not own the company. Hence, why your statement that they "are both China" is incorrect. More to the point, the Taiwan policy that you attribute to Trump has been, more or less, policy since since the U.S. shifted to Beijing over Taipei as the capital of "China", ie, bipartisan.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
You can't understand why I and others are against Huawei in our critical infrastructure, and why it is a National Security risk, but here you are, talking about security of our critical infrastructure, but only with regards to IoT.
The U.S. needs secure manufacturing for leading edge ARM silicon, and while Taiwan is still independent of China (China disagrees with that), that may not always be the case. More to the point, why would the U.S. allow leading edge technology with dual purpose, military and civilian, to be readily available to our primary adversary?
No, we know WHY you are against Huawei. We just think its bullshit.
As for this particular case -- why worry about being self sufficient in one product if you need a dozen more just to make it work?. And, why would you choose a Chinese company if you are trying to secure yourself from China? That's silly.
TSMC isTaiwanese. Taiwan doesn't consider itself to be a part of China regardless of whether you do or not.
The world knows that its part of China. It's only the Trumpers who haven't figured that out yet.
But, what makes this nonsense even more nonsensical: the world considers Taiwan a part of China -- which makes TSMC a Chinese company. So here we have Trump telling a Chinese company that he won't let them sell to another Chinese company!
Cramer is both a solid Trumper and a China hater. But even he was incredulous and his question was: "Are you crazy? Why would you pick a fight NOW?" And, I might add, an unwinnable fight -- just like his last. And the losers will be: Everybody but Trump.
China has "title" to it, but doesn't have any control of the government, people, or companies, and Taiwan's military is configured to repel a Chinese invasion. Many Western nations might support a military intervention to prevent China from taking Taiwan, but as China's military power grows, that look less likely, so the matter continues in limbo.
Still, you are technically incorrect that China owns TMSC, since China does not own the company. Hence, why your statement that they "are both China" is incorrect. More to the point, the Taiwan policy that you attribute to Trump has been, more or less, policy since since the U.S. shifted to Beijing over Taipei as the capital of "China", ie, bipartisan.
Nice try -- but I didn't say China owned TSMC. I said it was a Chinese company -- and Trump is telling them he decided they aren't allowed to sell to another Chinese company. It's a bit like Xi telling Intel they can't sell to HP. But, Trump does not seem to think he is bound by rules of honor, fairness, reason, law or even reality.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
I won’t spend the time to rebut every assertion made here, there are simply too many to address and they don’t interest me.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
You can't understand why I and others are against Huawei in our critical infrastructure, and why it is a National Security risk, but here you are, talking about security of our critical infrastructure, but only with regards to IoT.
The U.S. needs secure manufacturing for leading edge ARM silicon, and while Taiwan is still independent of China (China disagrees with that), that may not always be the case. More to the point, why would the U.S. allow leading edge technology with dual purpose, military and civilian, to be readily available to our primary adversary?
No, we know WHY you are against Huawei. We just think its bullshit.
As for this particular case -- why worry about being self sufficient in one product if you need a dozen more just to make it work?. And, why would you choose a Chinese company if you are trying to secure yourself from China? That's silly.
TSMC isTaiwanese. Taiwan doesn't consider itself to be a part of China regardless of whether you do or not.
The world knows that its part of China. It's only the Trumpers who haven't figured that out yet.
But, what makes this nonsense even more nonsensical: the world considers Taiwan a part of China -- which makes TSMC a Chinese company. So here we have Trump telling a Chinese company that he won't let them sell to another Chinese company!
Cramer is both a solid Trumper and a China hater. But even he was incredulous and his question was: "Are you crazy? Why would you pick a fight NOW?" And, I might add, an unwinnable fight -- just like his last. And the losers will be: Everybody but Trump.
China has "title" to it, but doesn't have any control of the government, people, or companies, and Taiwan's military is configured to repel a Chinese invasion. Many Western nations might support a military intervention to prevent China from taking Taiwan, but as China's military power grows, that look less likely, so the matter continues in limbo.
Still, you are technically incorrect that China owns TMSC, since China does not own the company. Hence, why your statement that they "are both China" is incorrect. More to the point, the Taiwan policy that you attribute to Trump has been, more or less, policy since since the U.S. shifted to Beijing over Taipei as the capital of "China", ie, bipartisan.
Nice try -- but I didn't say China owned TSMC. I said it was a Chinese company -- and Trump is telling them he decided they aren't allowed to sell to another Chinese company. It's a bit like Xi telling Intel they can't sell to HP. But, Trump does not seem to think he is bound by rules of honor, fairness, reason, law or even reality.
It's a Taiwanese company, not a Chinese Company, so stop misrepresenting TSMC as Chinese.
"Taiwan had observer status at the WHO for seven years until 2016, when it was blocked by China, as it has been every year since. Beijing believes Taiwan is deploying the WHO issue as a route to recognition internationally."
China is going all out to prevent Taiwan, which warned the World Health Organization about human to human transmission of COVID19 in December, and did a great job in containing COVID19, from obtaining observer status.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
That is, actually the only way.
It amazes me that the Libertarian Free Marketers support Trump's misguided, heavy handed, warmed over 80's protectionism. In the 80's, those policies did nothing to protect our basic industries just as Trump's have not only done nothing to protect or promote what little industry we have left -- but actually hurt it!
I agree that government and industry need to work together. That they cannot be at odds with each other and hope to succeed. Ultimately, in a Global Market World, free markets reign -- and the only the fittest survive. That's the part Trumpers -- even the anti-government, free marketers don't understand.
China has strong relationships between government and industry where each supports the other. It is based on real nationalism. Real patriotism. Not the fake stuff of the Trumpers. We should be learning from them rather than making futile, embarrassing efforts to block them.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
China has strong relationships between government and industry where each supports the other. It is based on real nationalism. Real patriotism. Not the fake stuff of the Trumpers. We should be learning from them rather than making futile, embarrassing efforts to block them.
You just made my case that Huawei, and other Chinese companies can't be trusted by the West for critical infrastructure.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
China has strong relationships between government and industry where each supports the other. It is based on real nationalism. Real patriotism. Not the fake stuff of the Trumpers. We should be learning from them rather than making futile, embarrassing efforts to block them.
You just made my case that Huawei, and other Chinese companies can't be trusted by the West for critical infrastructure.
Thanks so much.
More than 30 years of Huawei managing huge swathes of world telecommunications infrastructure without a single major problem begs to differ.
As for 'trust' what has the Crypto AG scandal told you? From a trusted source ;-)
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
China has strong relationships between government and industry where each supports the other. It is based on real nationalism. Real patriotism. Not the fake stuff of the Trumpers. We should be learning from them rather than making futile, embarrassing efforts to block them.
You just made my case that Huawei, and other Chinese companies can't be trusted by the West for critical infrastructure.
Thanks so much.
More than 30 years of Huawei managing huge swathes of world telecommunications infrastructure without a single major problem begs to differ.
As for 'trust' what has the Crypto AG scandal told you? From a trusted source ;-)
"Then there’s the pernicious myth, pushed by Huawei’s public relations team and through Huawei-commissioned reports, that the firm is the undisputed 5G technology leader. While Huawei leads the pack in number of patents, qualitative assessments show that the value of its portfolio is much less than that of its competitors—a classic case of quantity over quality.
Finally, the coalition should also take on the cost argument. While Huawei may provide the cheapest upfront option on the market, countries should examine how Huawei could impose hidden costs on the backend for maintenance and installation, beyond the considerable expense associated with risk mitigation efforts."
Meh, less Huawei, less risk.
Forbes has an interesting story that leads to TSMC;
TSMC’s roots go back to the Science and Technology Advisory Group (STAG) established by the Government of Taiwan in 1979. That group included Frederick Seitz, president of the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. and a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, Bob Evans, a key figure in the development of IBM IBM’s System/360, and Kenneth G. Mackay, executive vice president of Bell Labs and a pioneer in communications engineering. The STAG played a key role in pushing Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) to investigate semiconductors. ITRI’s Electronics Research and Service Organization (ERSO) eventually licensed RCA’s CMOS semiconductor process, and sent a team of 35 engineers from Taiwan and five overseas Chinese living in the U.S. to New Jersey in 1976 to learn the technology and transfer it back to Taiwan, where a demonstration production facility was setup. That project was spun off as United MicroelectronicsUMC in 1982, though the demonstration facility continued to churn out 15,000 wafers a month"
"In the early 1980s, Carver Mead at the California Institute of Technology began advocating a new approach for dealing with the complexity of very-large-scale integration (VLSI) design, in which the manufacturing of ICs would be separated from the design process. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated projects to develop electronic design tools that enabled the separation of the design process from the manufacturing. This was the birth of the concept of having a separate “foundry” that would contract manufacture chips for multiple customers. "
Those design tools, todays versions, are exactly those tools that the U.S. has or will intend to block from China, which would include HiSilicon. No tools, would mean huge difficulties in designing new silicon.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
China has strong relationships between government and industry where each supports the other. It is based on real nationalism. Real patriotism. Not the fake stuff of the Trumpers. We should be learning from them rather than making futile, embarrassing efforts to block them.
You just made my case that Huawei, and other Chinese companies can't be trusted by the West for critical infrastructure.
Thanks so much.
More than 30 years of Huawei managing huge swathes of world telecommunications infrastructure without a single major problem begs to differ.
As for 'trust' what has the Crypto AG scandal told you? From a trusted source ;-)
"Then there’s the pernicious myth, pushed by Huawei’s public relations team and through Huawei-commissioned reports, that the firm is the undisputed 5G technology leader. While Huawei leads the pack in number of patents, qualitative assessments show that the value of its portfolio is much less than that of its competitors—a classic case of quantity over quality.
Finally, the coalition should also take on the cost argument. While Huawei may provide the cheapest upfront option on the market, countries should examine how Huawei could impose hidden costs on the backend for maintenance and installation, beyond the considerable expense associated with risk mitigation efforts."
Meh, less Huawei, less risk.
There you go again. Scurrying off to a completely different point! And a worthless one at that.
No. Rewind. Deal with what I contested - based on recent history. 30 year's worth.
This is a point you have injected. Unnecessarily of course and completely OT.
Has trust not already been earned by Huawei ?
Should we trust the U.S after decades of Crypto AG (and a truckload of other breaches of 'trust' )?
Based on history, who can be trusted more?
The facts are out there. I'm sure that, had Huawei not had such a spotless record, it would not see carriers of countries signing contracts with it by the sackload. Ah! And you would have jumped on the occasion gleefully to point that out to me.
The fact you didn't do that and decided to run up a dead end alley was telling.
Why don't we just pull back onto the track of the thread?
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
China has strong relationships between government and industry where each supports the other. It is based on real nationalism. Real patriotism. Not the fake stuff of the Trumpers. We should be learning from them rather than making futile, embarrassing efforts to block them.
You just made my case that Huawei, and other Chinese companies can't be trusted by the West for critical infrastructure.
Thanks so much.
More than 30 years of Huawei managing huge swathes of world telecommunications infrastructure without a single major problem begs to differ.
As for 'trust' what has the Crypto AG scandal told you? From a trusted source ;-)
"Then there’s the pernicious myth, pushed by Huawei’s public relations team and through Huawei-commissioned reports, that the firm is the undisputed 5G technology leader. While Huawei leads the pack in number of patents, qualitative assessments show that the value of its portfolio is much less than that of its competitors—a classic case of quantity over quality.
Finally, the coalition should also take on the cost argument. While Huawei may provide the cheapest upfront option on the market, countries should examine how Huawei could impose hidden costs on the backend for maintenance and installation, beyond the considerable expense associated with risk mitigation efforts."
Meh, less Huawei, less risk.
Why don't we just pull back onto the track of the thread?
LOL.
Why do I need to pullback. It was your fellow traveller that supported my position, GeorgeBMac, as I've always maintained, with at least some facts, that Huawei is tied to the CCP. You deny that based on your "trust", nothing more, of Huawei.
That's the National Security risk. More to the point, I have posted in the past links, for example the bugging of the African Union, and Huawei employees caught in espionage operations in Poland. Both those cases you denied, as it you have better information.
Face it. You appear a willing propaganda tool of the CCP and Huawei.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
You can't understand why I and others are against Huawei in our critical infrastructure, and why it is a National Security risk, but here you are, talking about security of our critical infrastructure, but only with regards to IoT.
The U.S. needs secure manufacturing for leading edge ARM silicon, and while Taiwan is still independent of China (China disagrees with that), that may not always be the case. More to the point, why would the U.S. allow leading edge technology with dual purpose, military and civilian, to be readily available to our primary adversary?
No, we know WHY you are against Huawei. We just think its bullshit.
As for this particular case -- why worry about being self sufficient in one product if you need a dozen more just to make it work?. And, why would you choose a Chinese company if you are trying to secure yourself from China? That's silly.
TSMC isTaiwanese. Taiwan doesn't consider itself to be a part of China regardless of whether you do or not.
The world knows that its part of China. It's only the Trumpers who haven't figured that out yet.
But, what makes this nonsense even more nonsensical: the world considers Taiwan a part of China -- which makes TSMC a Chinese company. So here we have Trump telling a Chinese company that he won't let them sell to another Chinese company!
Cramer is both a solid Trumper and a China hater. But even he was incredulous and his question was: "Are you crazy? Why would you pick a fight NOW?" And, I might add, an unwinnable fight -- just like his last. And the losers will be: Everybody but Trump.
China has "title" to it, but doesn't have any control of the government, people, or companies, and Taiwan's military is configured to repel a Chinese invasion. Many Western nations might support a military intervention to prevent China from taking Taiwan, but as China's military power grows, that look less likely, so the matter continues in limbo.
Still, you are technically incorrect that China owns TMSC, since China does not own the company. Hence, why your statement that they "are both China" is incorrect. More to the point, the Taiwan policy that you attribute to Trump has been, more or less, policy since since the U.S. shifted to Beijing over Taipei as the capital of "China", ie, bipartisan.
Nice try -- but I didn't say China owned TSMC. I said it was a Chinese company -- and Trump is telling them he decided they aren't allowed to sell to another Chinese company. It's a bit like Xi telling Intel they can't sell to HP. But, Trump does not seem to think he is bound by rules of honor, fairness, reason, law or even reality.
So I'll post this, again in reference to Taiwan being independent of China;
"Taiwan’s health minister rejected on Friday China’s main condition for the island to be able to take part in the World Health Organization (WHO) – that it accepts it is part of China – ahead of a key meeting of the body during a pandemic.
Non-WHO member Taiwan has lobbied to take part as an observer in next week’s World Heath Assembly (WHA), drawing strong objections from Beijing, which considers Taiwan to be one of its provinces.
Taiwan says the coronavirus pandemic has made it more urgent than ever that it be allowed proper access to the WHO.
China says Taiwan can only participate under the “one China” principle, in which it accepts it is a part of China.
China’s Foreign Ministry said on Thursday that Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party refused to do this, and so the political foundation for Taiwan’s WHO participation had “ceased to exist”.
So a high functioning Democracy, Taiwan, that doesn't want to be part of a larger Authoritarian Government, The Peoples Republic of China, states that they do not accept that it is part of China.
Practically the whole world supports Taiwan, but very few want to state so and infuriate the PRC.
You seem to be okay with Democracies capitulating to Communist Authoritarians.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
China has strong relationships between government and industry where each supports the other. It is based on real nationalism. Real patriotism. Not the fake stuff of the Trumpers. We should be learning from them rather than making futile, embarrassing efforts to block them.
You just made my case that Huawei, and other Chinese companies can't be trusted by the West for critical infrastructure.
Thanks so much.
More than 30 years of Huawei managing huge swathes of world telecommunications infrastructure without a single major problem begs to differ.
As for 'trust' what has the Crypto AG scandal told you? From a trusted source ;-)
"Then there’s the pernicious myth, pushed by Huawei’s public relations team and through Huawei-commissioned reports, that the firm is the undisputed 5G technology leader. While Huawei leads the pack in number of patents, qualitative assessments show that the value of its portfolio is much less than that of its competitors—a classic case of quantity over quality.
Finally, the coalition should also take on the cost argument. While Huawei may provide the cheapest upfront option on the market, countries should examine how Huawei could impose hidden costs on the backend for maintenance and installation, beyond the considerable expense associated with risk mitigation efforts."
Meh, less Huawei, less risk.
Why don't we just pull back onto the track of the thread?
LOL.
Why do I need to pullback. It was your fellow traveller that supported my position, GeorgeBMac, as I've always maintained, with at least some facts, that Huawei is tied to the CCP. You deny that based on your "trust", nothing more, of Huawei.
That's the National Security risk. More to the point, I have posted in the past links, for example the bugging of the African Union, and Huawei employees caught in espionage operations in Poland. Both those cases you denied, as it you have better information.
Face it. You appear a willing propaganda tool of the CCP and Huawei.
You persist.
You didn't answer the question.
You are also short sighted.
The African Union report was denied by Huawei, denied by China and the original story (as usual) was from anonymous sources, but there it is.
Did you ever follow up on the situation? Are you aware that the African Union still uses Huawei?
Huawei has over 190,000 employees. Two people were arrested on spying charges. A Huawei employee and a Polish national who I believe was an Orange employee.
Huawei fired the employee for bringing the company into disrepute but contines to help the ex-employee because he states he is innocent. That went completely over your head.
You are judging things based on an arrest. There hasn't even been a trial yet! Should Orange be blacklisted because one of its employees was arrested on the same charges?
The person had even worked in the Polish intelligence services.
Your problem, in both cases, is that in your mind, you have already sentenced Huawei in spite of there being nothing to sentence them on.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
You can't understand why I and others are against Huawei in our critical infrastructure, and why it is a National Security risk, but here you are, talking about security of our critical infrastructure, but only with regards to IoT.
The U.S. needs secure manufacturing for leading edge ARM silicon, and while Taiwan is still independent of China (China disagrees with that), that may not always be the case. More to the point, why would the U.S. allow leading edge technology with dual purpose, military and civilian, to be readily available to our primary adversary?
No, we know WHY you are against Huawei. We just think its bullshit.
As for this particular case -- why worry about being self sufficient in one product if you need a dozen more just to make it work?. And, why would you choose a Chinese company if you are trying to secure yourself from China? That's silly.
TSMC isTaiwanese. Taiwan doesn't consider itself to be a part of China regardless of whether you do or not.
The world knows that its part of China. It's only the Trumpers who haven't figured that out yet.
But, what makes this nonsense even more nonsensical: the world considers Taiwan a part of China -- which makes TSMC a Chinese company. So here we have Trump telling a Chinese company that he won't let them sell to another Chinese company!
Cramer is both a solid Trumper and a China hater. But even he was incredulous and his question was: "Are you crazy? Why would you pick a fight NOW?" And, I might add, an unwinnable fight -- just like his last. And the losers will be: Everybody but Trump.
Doesn't matter what the world thinks. It matters what the Taiwanese think.
I imagine this would not have been possible without state and federal aid so the question on most people's lips is how much is involved.
Long term, it is a reasonable strategy, even with the government helping out which is how it should be IMO. The control of IoT security has long been a concern to many, and the chipset supply chain has been the biggest worry of them all. It would make sense to have IoT chipsets fabbed locally along with phone SoCs etc.
Between now and 2024 there will be an incredible amount of IoT devices hitting the market. Far outnumbering phone chipsets.
I don't know the details, but I wonder why the US didn't invest in saving and retaining US companies like Fairchild Semiconductors and National Semiconductors if having in-country fabs was of strategic national importance? There is also a concern in the back of my head that no matter how close we think the US may be with a foreign country, politics can change in a heartbeat. Maybe it's because a quarter of the students in my advanced military training program for state-of-the-art systems (that are still front line) were Iranian. One day they were our dear classmates, the next day they were gone.
Perhaps the US could do more to promote the interests of US citizens, as has been happening since 2016.
What has the US done since 2016 to improve its modern manufacturing competency and global competitiveness? As a country we have to earn respect in competitive environments, not coerce it with threats and tariffs. I have no problem with the US temporarily propping up uncompetitive US industries to give them time to get their act together, to the point where they are competitive, like we did with Harley Davidson. At some point the water wings have to come off and it's time for these companies to swim or die. It doesn't really matter whether the water wings are applied by a bureaucrat or an autocrat means, they have to come off.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
That is, actually the only way.
It amazes me that the Libertarian Free Marketers support Trump's misguided, heavy handed, warmed over 80's protectionism. In the 80's, those policies did nothing to protect our basic industries just as Trump's have not only done nothing to protect or promote what little industry we have left -- but actually hurt it!
I agree that government and industry need to work together. That they cannot be at odds with each other and hope to succeed. Ultimately, in a Global Market World, free markets reign -- and the only the fittest survive. That's the part Trumpers -- even the anti-government, free marketers don't understand.
China has strong relationships between government and industry where each supports the other. It is based on real nationalism. Real patriotism. Not the fake stuff of the Trumpers. We should be learning from them rather than making futile, embarrassing efforts to block them.
China also has a history of human rights abuses, not only of Chinese people, but Muslims and more recently blacks. They have a history of corporate espionage and IP theft. That's not to say other countries don't have faults or are perfect but China takes it to a whole other level.
Comments
They likely won't now.
And, I might add, an unwinnable fight -- just like his last. And the losers will be: Everybody but Trump.
Still, you are technically incorrect that China owns TMSC, since China does not own the company. Hence, why your statement that they "are both China" is incorrect. More to the point, the Taiwan policy that you attribute to Trump has been, more or less, policy since since the U.S. shifted to Beijing over Taipei as the capital of "China", ie, bipartisan.
Nice try -- but I didn't say China owned TSMC. I said it was a Chinese company -- and Trump is telling them he decided they aren't allowed to sell to another Chinese company. It's a bit like Xi telling Intel they can't sell to HP. But, Trump does not seem to think he is bound by rules of honor, fairness, reason, law or even reality.
One could argue that some countries are propping up their manufacturing base. That's undoubtedly true, but they are getting a lot of help from US companies who are in-turn being richly rewarded by Wall Street. I'd rather see the US investing in propping up US-based and US-owned competitors to Foxconn and TSMC so US manufacturing companies can win back Apple's business rather than looking for coerced charitable handouts from afar. Yes, this requires a lot of hard work and scares the crap out of the one percent club because it's hard and doesn't deliver big ROI in the next quarter. However, this whole charade of having the one percenters coming up with a farcical plan that throws a skinny little bone to a tiny fraction of the working class for show purposes, without creating any sustainable competency that outlives the charade, is a cruel game of smoke & mirrors.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/15/taiwan-must-accept-chinese-status-to-attend-who-assembly-says-beijing
"Taiwan had observer status at the WHO for seven years until 2016, when it was blocked by China, as it has been every year since. Beijing believes Taiwan is deploying the WHO issue as a route to recognition internationally."
China is going all out to prevent Taiwan, which warned the World Health Organization about human to human transmission of COVID19 in December, and did a great job in containing COVID19, from obtaining observer status.
Thanks so much.
As for 'trust' what has the Crypto AG scandal told you? From a trusted source ;-)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-security/cia-crypto-encryption-machines-espionage/
"Then there’s the pernicious myth, pushed by Huawei’s public relations team and through Huawei-commissioned reports, that the firm is the undisputed 5G technology leader. While Huawei leads the pack in number of patents, qualitative assessments show that the value of its portfolio is much less than that of its competitors—a classic case of quantity over quality.
Finally, the coalition should also take on the cost argument. While Huawei may provide the cheapest upfront option on the market, countries should examine how Huawei could impose hidden costs on the backend for maintenance and installation, beyond the considerable expense associated with risk mitigation efforts."
Meh, less Huawei, less risk.Forbes has an interesting story that leads to TSMC;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyshih/2020/05/15/tsmcs-announcement-of-a-us-fab-is-big-news/#7163a7b62340
"TSMC has a remarkable history
TSMC’s roots go back to the Science and Technology Advisory Group (STAG) established by the Government of Taiwan in 1979. That group included Frederick Seitz, president of the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. and a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, Bob Evans, a key figure in the development of IBM IBM’s System/360, and Kenneth G. Mackay, executive vice president of Bell Labs and a pioneer in communications engineering. The STAG played a key role in pushing Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) to investigate semiconductors. ITRI’s Electronics Research and Service Organization (ERSO) eventually licensed RCA’s CMOS semiconductor process, and sent a team of 35 engineers from Taiwan and five overseas Chinese living in the U.S. to New Jersey in 1976 to learn the technology and transfer it back to Taiwan, where a demonstration production facility was setup. That project was spun off as United Microelectronics UMC in 1982, though the demonstration facility continued to churn out 15,000 wafers a month"
"In the early 1980s, Carver Mead at the California Institute of Technology began advocating a new approach for dealing with the complexity of very-large-scale integration (VLSI) design, in which the manufacturing of ICs would be separated from the design process. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated projects to develop electronic design tools that enabled the separation of the design process from the manufacturing. This was the birth of the concept of having a separate “foundry” that would contract manufacture chips for multiple customers. "
Those design tools, todays versions, are exactly those tools that the U.S. has or will intend to block from China, which would include HiSilicon. No tools, would mean huge difficulties in designing new silicon.
No. Rewind. Deal with what I contested - based on recent history. 30 year's worth.
This is a point you have injected. Unnecessarily of course and completely OT.
Has trust not already been earned by Huawei ?
Should we trust the U.S after decades of Crypto AG (and a truckload of other breaches of 'trust' )?
Based on history, who can be trusted more?
The facts are out there. I'm sure that, had Huawei not had such a spotless record, it would not see carriers of countries signing contracts with it by the sackload. Ah! And you would have jumped on the occasion gleefully to point that out to me.
The fact you didn't do that and decided to run up a dead end alley was telling.
Why don't we just pull back onto the track of the thread?
Why do I need to pullback. It was your fellow traveller that supported my position, GeorgeBMac, as I've always maintained, with at least some facts, that Huawei is tied to the CCP. You deny that based on your "trust", nothing more, of Huawei.
That's the National Security risk. More to the point, I have posted in the past links, for example the bugging of the African Union, and Huawei employees caught in espionage operations in Poland. Both those cases you denied, as it you have better information.
Face it. You appear a willing propaganda tool of the CCP and Huawei.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-taiwan-rejects-accepting-it-is-part-of-china-which-is-beijings-main/
"Taiwan’s health minister rejected on Friday China’s main condition for the island to be able to take part in the World Health Organization (WHO) – that it accepts it is part of China – ahead of a key meeting of the body during a pandemic.
Non-WHO member Taiwan has lobbied to take part as an observer in next week’s World Heath Assembly (WHA), drawing strong objections from Beijing, which considers Taiwan to be one of its provinces.
Taiwan says the coronavirus pandemic has made it more urgent than ever that it be allowed proper access to the WHO.
China says Taiwan can only participate under the “one China” principle, in which it accepts it is a part of China.
China’s Foreign Ministry said on Thursday that Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party refused to do this, and so the political foundation for Taiwan’s WHO participation had “ceased to exist”.
So a high functioning Democracy, Taiwan, that doesn't want to be part of a larger Authoritarian Government, The Peoples Republic of China, states that they do not accept that it is part of China.
Practically the whole world supports Taiwan, but very few want to state so and infuriate the PRC.
You seem to be okay with Democracies capitulating to Communist Authoritarians.
You didn't answer the question.
You are also short sighted.
The African Union report was denied by Huawei, denied by China and the original story (as usual) was from anonymous sources, but there it is.
Did you ever follow up on the situation? Are you aware that the African Union still uses Huawei?
Huawei has over 190,000 employees. Two people were arrested on spying charges. A Huawei employee and a Polish national who I believe was an Orange employee.
Huawei fired the employee for bringing the company into disrepute but contines to help the ex-employee because he states he is innocent. That went completely over your head.
You are judging things based on an arrest. There hasn't even been a trial yet! Should Orange be blacklisted because one of its employees was arrested on the same charges?
The person had even worked in the Polish intelligence services.
Your problem, in both cases, is that in your mind, you have already sentenced Huawei in spite of there being nothing to sentence them on.
That is dangerous thinking.