"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
It's a decade out. Seriously?
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
It's a decade out. Seriously?
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
It's a decade out. Seriously?
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
Not impossible. A slog.
Like the slog that Huawei and China's Silicon Industry have to go through? Having to develop all of the manufacturing equipment and processes that TSMC has already pioneered?
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
It's a decade out. Seriously?
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
Not impossible. A slog.
Like the slog that Huawei and China's Silicon Industry have to go through? Having to develop all of the manufacturing equipment and processes that TSMC has already pioneered?
There's isn't anything available yet, hence the White Papers.
Yes. A slog. Your point?
Nothing is available yet because it has to go through the standardisation process. That said, the Chinese already have a satellite up and are testing potential 6G technologies. Huawei began its 6G efforts a few years ago too.
Apple has zero experience with ICT technology. It will have to build from scratch.
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
It's a decade out. Seriously?
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
Not impossible. A slog.
Like the slog that Huawei and China's Silicon Industry have to go through? Having to develop all of the manufacturing equipment and processes that TSMC has already pioneered?
There's isn't anything available yet, hence the White Papers.
Yes. A slog. Your point?
Nothing is available yet because it has to go through the standardisation process. That said, the Chinese already have a satellite up and are testing potential 6G technologies. Huawei began its 6G efforts a few years ago too.
Apple has zero experience with ICT technology. It will have to build from scratch.
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
It's a decade out. Seriously?
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
Not impossible. A slog.
Like the slog that Huawei and China's Silicon Industry have to go through? Having to develop all of the manufacturing equipment and processes that TSMC has already pioneered?
There's isn't anything available yet, hence the White Papers.
Yes. A slog. Your point?
Nothing is available yet because it has to go through the standardisation process. That said, the Chinese already have a satellite up and are testing potential 6G technologies. Huawei began its 6G efforts a few years ago too.
Apple has zero experience with ICT technology. It will have to build from scratch.
It will be a slog.
LOL!
You just can't give up on Huawei...
Would you rather I spoke about Samsung 6G?
Even though I know very little about it?
Like 5G, 6G will be a collection of different technologies. Companies are actively working on some of them now to see if they are viable (hence that Chinese satellite). Much later we'll see which options make the grade or not and if they are accepted in the standardisation process.
Apple, with no experience and virtually no patents in the field will find it hard going. I don't see why that bothers you. In fact Apple may start buying up existing companies to get a leg up.
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
It's a decade out. Seriously?
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
Not impossible. A slog.
Like the slog that Huawei and China's Silicon Industry have to go through? Having to develop all of the manufacturing equipment and processes that TSMC has already pioneered?
There's isn't anything available yet, hence the White Papers.
Yes. A slog. Your point?
Nothing is available yet because it has to go through the standardisation process. That said, the Chinese already have a satellite up and are testing potential 6G technologies. Huawei began its 6G efforts a few years ago too.
Apple has zero experience with ICT technology. It will have to build from scratch.
It will be a slog.
LOL!
You just can't give up on Huawei...
Would you rather I spoke about Samsung 6G?
Even though I know very little about it?
Like 5G, 6G will be a collection of different technologies. Companies are actively working on some of them now to see if they are viable (hence that Chinese satellite). Much later we'll see which options make the grade or not and if they are accepted in the standardisation process.
Apple, with no experience and virtually no patents in the field will find it hard going. I don't see why that bothers you. In fact Apple may start buying up existing companies to get a leg up.
Apple has all of the patents that came with the Intel Business, and all of the patents that they licensed from Qualcomm, which are good for another 5 years or so. Apple also has plenty of cash to hire Phd's and PostDoc's, and lure various senior management from Qualcomm, et al, and basically leverage its current 5G expertise into 6G. Given that 6G will be standarized, there will be a plethora of additional FRAND'ed IP available.
I'm just not seeing what you are. It's just a standard buildup to add a new technology, and Apple has plenty of time to do that. Your use of the word "slog" is more apropos to what China has to do to catch up with Taiwan and the West in Silicon fab, design, and verification.
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
It's a decade out. Seriously?
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
Not impossible. A slog.
Like the slog that Huawei and China's Silicon Industry have to go through? Having to develop all of the manufacturing equipment and processes that TSMC has already pioneered?
There's isn't anything available yet, hence the White Papers.
Yes. A slog. Your point?
Nothing is available yet because it has to go through the standardisation process. That said, the Chinese already have a satellite up and are testing potential 6G technologies. Huawei began its 6G efforts a few years ago too.
Apple has zero experience with ICT technology. It will have to build from scratch.
It will be a slog.
LOL!
You just can't give up on Huawei...
Would you rather I spoke about Samsung 6G?
Even though I know very little about it?
Like 5G, 6G will be a collection of different technologies. Companies are actively working on some of them now to see if they are viable (hence that Chinese satellite). Much later we'll see which options make the grade or not and if they are accepted in the standardisation process.
Apple, with no experience and virtually no patents in the field will find it hard going. I don't see why that bothers you. In fact Apple may start buying up existing companies to get a leg up.
Apple has all of the patents that came with the Intel Business, and all of the patents that they licensed from Qualcomm, which are good for another 5 years or so. Apple also has plenty of cash to hire Phd's and PostDoc's, and lure various senior management from Qualcomm, et al, and basically leverage its current 5G expertise into 6G. Given that 6G will be standarized, there will be a plethora of additional FRAND'ed IP available.
I'm just not seeing what you are. It's just a standard buildup to add a new technology, and Apple has plenty of time to do that. Your use of the word "slog" is more apropos to what China has to do to catch up with Taiwan and the West in Silicon fab, design, and verification.
That's a lot of speculation there but marries well with what I said. Apple could throw money at the situation. It has been hiring Qualcomm engineers for a while and in spite of the intel purchase, the last time I took a look at 5G patents (June 2020), Apple wasn't on the chart under its own name but buried in 'other'.
Still, you have to start somewhere so the Intel purchase was that. Remember that Intel was actually losing a billion dollars a year on its 5G modem business. Apple had no road map to where it is now. Basically, it was forced to act when intel failed to deliver. It had to lick the toad (kiss and make up with QC), purchase the intel patents and now has to develop things further. There was no plan and that has been a key factor with where they are now with 5G - trailing. It won't be easy and money is not a guarantee of success.
The situation with Huawei is completely different. They, nor anyone else, had any need to fab there own chips. They didn't even need to contemplate it. However, Trump, in an act of madness, used extra territorial powers (to the shock of the world) to thwart Huawei. The situation is literally unprecedented.
Now the damage is done and Huawei will go it alone and TSMC, Samsung and other fabs know what is coming. Fierce competition. Not this year and not next year but it is coming. The US semiconductor industry decried the Trump move. They know what is coming too.
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
It's a decade out. Seriously?
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
Not impossible. A slog.
Like the slog that Huawei and China's Silicon Industry have to go through? Having to develop all of the manufacturing equipment and processes that TSMC has already pioneered?
There's isn't anything available yet, hence the White Papers.
Yes. A slog. Your point?
Nothing is available yet because it has to go through the standardisation process. That said, the Chinese already have a satellite up and are testing potential 6G technologies. Huawei began its 6G efforts a few years ago too.
Apple has zero experience with ICT technology. It will have to build from scratch.
It will be a slog.
LOL!
You just can't give up on Huawei...
Would you rather I spoke about Samsung 6G?
Even though I know very little about it?
Like 5G, 6G will be a collection of different technologies. Companies are actively working on some of them now to see if they are viable (hence that Chinese satellite). Much later we'll see which options make the grade or not and if they are accepted in the standardisation process.
Apple, with no experience and virtually no patents in the field will find it hard going. I don't see why that bothers you. In fact Apple may start buying up existing companies to get a leg up.
Apple has all of the patents that came with the Intel Business, and all of the patents that they licensed from Qualcomm, which are good for another 5 years or so. Apple also has plenty of cash to hire Phd's and PostDoc's, and lure various senior management from Qualcomm, et al, and basically leverage its current 5G expertise into 6G. Given that 6G will be standarized, there will be a plethora of additional FRAND'ed IP available.
I'm just not seeing what you are. It's just a standard buildup to add a new technology, and Apple has plenty of time to do that. Your use of the word "slog" is more apropos to what China has to do to catch up with Taiwan and the West in Silicon fab, design, and verification.
That's a lot of speculation there but marries well with what I said. Apple could throw money at the situation. It has been hiring Qualcomm engineers for a while and in spite of the intel purchase, the last time I took a look at 5G patents (June 2020), Apple wasn't on the chart under its own name but buried in 'other'.
Still, you have to start somewhere so the Intel purchase was that. Remember that Intel was actually losing a billion dollars a year on its 5G modem business. Apple had no road map to where it is now. Basically, it was forced to act when intel failed to deliver. It had to lick the toad (kiss and make up with QC), purchase the intel patents and now has to develop things further. There was no plan and that has been a key factor with where they are now with 5G - trailing. It won't be easy and money is not a guarantee of success.
The situation with Huawei is completely different. They, nor anyone else, had any need to fab there own chips. They didn't even need to contemplate it. However, Trump, in an act of madness, used extra territorial powers (to the shock of the world) to thwart Huawei. The situation is literally unprecedented.
Now the damage is done and Huawei will go it alone and TSMC, Samsung and other fabs know what is coming. Fierce competition. Not this year and not next year but it is coming. The US semiconductor industry decried the Trump move. They know what is coming too.
Getting into the Fab business at the even a few nodes behind the leading edge is non-trivial, and catching TSMC is going to be at best, a long slog.
More to the point, China is using Western Technology to increase its Military in quantitative and qualitative ways. It seem obvious to me that preventing China from using current TSMC nodes is prudent.
"The rise of Huawei is painstakingly rendered in a small library of self-aggrandizing literature that the company publishes, including several volumes of quotes from its founder. The theme of this opus is hard to miss, expressed in a variety of fighting analogies. In one such description, Tian Tao, the company's authorized Boswell, quotes Ren on how the company competed against the powerful international “elephants” that once dominated the field. “Of course, Huawei is no match for an elephant, so it has to adopt the qualities of wolves: a keen sense of smell, a strong competitive nature, a pack mentality, and a spirit of sacrifice.”
The hagiographies omit some key details about how the wolf got along. For one, they dramatically underplay the role of the Chinese government, which in the 1990s offered loans and other financial support, in addition to policies that favored Chinese telecom companies over foreign ones. (In a rare moment of candor on this issue, Ren himself admitted in an interview that Huawei would not exist if not for government support.) With the government behind them, Chinese companies like Huawei and its domestic rival ZTE came to dominate the national telecom equipment market. Huawei had become the elephant.
Another subject one does not encounter in the company's library is the alleged use of stolen intellectual property, a charge the company denies. “If you read the Western media about Huawei, you will find plenty of people who say that everything from Huawei was begged, borrowed, or stolen. And there is absolutely no truth in that,” says Brian Chamberlin, an executive adviser for Huawei's carrier group. But in one notorious 2003 case, Huawei admitted using router software copied from Cisco, though it insisted the use was very limited, and the sides negotiated a settlement that was “mutually beneficial.” More recently, in February, the US Department of Justice filed a suit against the company charging it with “grow[ing] the worldwide business of Huawei … through the deliberate and repeated misappropriation of intellectual property.” The indictment alleges Huawei has been engaging in these practices since at least 2000.
The Chinese government also provided support to help Huawei gain a foothold overseas, offering loans to customers that made Huawei's products more appealing. One of Huawei's biggest foreign competitors was Nortel, the dominant North American telecom company based in Canada. But Nortel's business was struggling just at a time when competition from Chinese products was intensifying. Then, in 2004, a Nortel security specialist named Brian Shields discovered that computers based in China, using passwords of Nortel executives, had been downloading hundreds of documents from the company. “There's nothing they couldn't have gotten at,” Shields says. Though no one ever publicly identified the hackers, and Ren denied any Huawei involvement, the episode added to the suspicion in the West that Huawei's success was not always achieved on the up and up."
Not exactly a self made company.
Erm, the point was to highlight why it was a good move for Apple to have a role on standards boards and the influence of having a hand in shaping the technology of the future. That and because the story is fascinating in itself.
I mentioned polar codes but could have mentioned anything where standards are important. It was pure coincidence that this article came out now.
You made it something else entirely by focusing on something completely different.
That's a bit sad but I'm sure most people will find the read interesting and informative all the same.
That information was prominent within the article, and naturally, you linked to the Huawei connection, so I felt free to post an excerpt of the article. Did you miss the connection with Bell Labs, which is now Nokia Bell Labs?
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
Feel free to do as you please but that doesn't change the facts. It had little to do with the point. Basically nothing. And it was irrelevant.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
A slog with 6G from a standards and technological perspective.
It's a decade out. Seriously?
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
Not impossible. A slog.
Like the slog that Huawei and China's Silicon Industry have to go through? Having to develop all of the manufacturing equipment and processes that TSMC has already pioneered?
There's isn't anything available yet, hence the White Papers.
Yes. A slog. Your point?
Nothing is available yet because it has to go through the standardisation process. That said, the Chinese already have a satellite up and are testing potential 6G technologies. Huawei began its 6G efforts a few years ago too.
Apple has zero experience with ICT technology. It will have to build from scratch.
It will be a slog.
LOL!
You just can't give up on Huawei...
Would you rather I spoke about Samsung 6G?
Even though I know very little about it?
Like 5G, 6G will be a collection of different technologies. Companies are actively working on some of them now to see if they are viable (hence that Chinese satellite). Much later we'll see which options make the grade or not and if they are accepted in the standardisation process.
Apple, with no experience and virtually no patents in the field will find it hard going. I don't see why that bothers you. In fact Apple may start buying up existing companies to get a leg up.
Apple has all of the patents that came with the Intel Business, and all of the patents that they licensed from Qualcomm, which are good for another 5 years or so. Apple also has plenty of cash to hire Phd's and PostDoc's, and lure various senior management from Qualcomm, et al, and basically leverage its current 5G expertise into 6G. Given that 6G will be standarized, there will be a plethora of additional FRAND'ed IP available.
I'm just not seeing what you are. It's just a standard buildup to add a new technology, and Apple has plenty of time to do that. Your use of the word "slog" is more apropos to what China has to do to catch up with Taiwan and the West in Silicon fab, design, and verification.
That's a lot of speculation there but marries well with what I said. Apple could throw money at the situation. It has been hiring Qualcomm engineers for a while and in spite of the intel purchase, the last time I took a look at 5G patents (June 2020), Apple wasn't on the chart under its own name but buried in 'other'.
Still, you have to start somewhere so the Intel purchase was that. Remember that Intel was actually losing a billion dollars a year on its 5G modem business. Apple had no road map to where it is now. Basically, it was forced to act when intel failed to deliver. It had to lick the toad (kiss and make up with QC), purchase the intel patents and now has to develop things further. There was no plan and that has been a key factor with where they are now with 5G - trailing. It won't be easy and money is not a guarantee of success.
The situation with Huawei is completely different. They, nor anyone else, had any need to fab there own chips. They didn't even need to contemplate it. However, Trump, in an act of madness, used extra territorial powers (to the shock of the world) to thwart Huawei. The situation is literally unprecedented.
Now the damage is done and Huawei will go it alone and TSMC, Samsung and other fabs know what is coming. Fierce competition. Not this year and not next year but it is coming. The US semiconductor industry decried the Trump move. They know what is coming too.
Getting into the Fab business at the even a few nodes behind the leading edge is non-trivial, and catching TSMC is going to be at best, a long slog.
More to the point, China is using Western Technology to increase its Military in quantitative and qualitative ways. It seem obvious to me that preventing China from using current TSMC nodes is prudent.
China isn't the good guys.
That isn't the point. The point is that the ball is rolling and nothing is going to stop it. A foolish move of epic proportions. And Huawei will reach its goals far sooner than you think (but of course it won't be tomorrow).
And if past history is anything to go by, the move by the US to limit Xeon sales to China (another foolish move) should give food for thought, it backfired spectacularly.
Now, with lithography and other areas, China will simply accelerate its plans by pumping money into developing 'homemade' solutions.
The US tried to make itself a technology gatekeeper - to the horror of the rest of the world, and while China is obviously the main focus of technology self dependency, ALL the other major players are moving to do the same.
Comments
I think it is a good move, and I expect that the U.S., under new leadership, will continue to expand its participation in international standards committees, that was accelerated under the previous leadership.
And the article makes it crystal clear that taking polar codes from theory to a practical implementation in a worldwide technological setting was the result of billions of dollars in R&D and some very talented engineers, in addition to having a varying seats on the standards committees.
And before you reply, I suggest you review the facts of the Cisco case (not what an ex employee might think).
The US let the 5G ship sail without embarking. 6G is probably 10 years off but it better not miss the 6G ship.
That said, Qualcomm is far better placed to have real impact. Apple has a slog ahead of it but it is a wise move nevertheless.
Really?
https://wccftech.com/qualcomm-snapdragon-875-100-more-expensive-snapdragon-865/
Qualcomm 875 is noted to cost in the range of $250, with discounts for volume, but that cost will either result in lower margins, or higher prices. Qualcomm also requires the OEM to purchase all the RF components that go with that modem.
Apple doesn't have to have the most performant modem to win, just good enough to compete, and that is certainly within the capabilities of Apple given the licenses that it has with Qualcomm.
Otherwise, Apple continues to lead on performance.
You think that being the company that Apple is, makes it impossible for them to accomplish that in a decade?
I posted links to white papers on 6G:
https://www.everythingrf.com/News/details/8958-Read-the-First-Official-White-Paper-on-6G-Technology
https://news.samsung.com/global/samsungs-6g-white-paper-lays-out-the-companys-vision-for-the-next-generation-of-communications-technology
https://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/binary/pdf/corporate/technology/whitepaper_6g/DOCOMO_6G_White_PaperEN_20200124.pdf
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2020/01/6g-and-the-reinvention-of-mobile/
What they all have in common?
There's isn't anything available yet, hence the White Papers.
Nothing is available yet because it has to go through the standardisation process. That said, the Chinese already have a satellite up and are testing potential 6G technologies. Huawei began its 6G efforts a few years ago too.
Apple has zero experience with ICT technology. It will have to build from scratch.
It will be a slog.
You just can't give up on Huawei...
Even though I know very little about it?
Like 5G, 6G will be a collection of different technologies. Companies are actively working on some of them now to see if they are viable (hence that Chinese satellite). Much later we'll see which options make the grade or not and if they are accepted in the standardisation process.
Apple, with no experience and virtually no patents in the field will find it hard going. I don't see why that bothers you. In fact Apple may start buying up existing companies to get a leg up.
I'm just not seeing what you are. It's just a standard buildup to add a new technology, and Apple has plenty of time to do that. Your use of the word "slog" is more apropos to what China has to do to catch up with Taiwan and the West in Silicon fab, design, and verification.
Still, you have to start somewhere so the Intel purchase was that. Remember that Intel was actually losing a billion dollars a year on its 5G modem business. Apple had no road map to where it is now. Basically, it was forced to act when intel failed to deliver. It had to lick the toad (kiss and make up with QC), purchase the intel patents and now has to develop things further. There was no plan and that has been a key factor with where they are now with 5G - trailing. It won't be easy and money is not a guarantee of success.
The situation with Huawei is completely different. They, nor anyone else, had any need to fab there own chips. They didn't even need to contemplate it. However, Trump, in an act of madness, used extra territorial powers (to the shock of the world) to thwart Huawei. The situation is literally unprecedented.
Now the damage is done and Huawei will go it alone and TSMC, Samsung and other fabs know what is coming. Fierce competition. Not this year and not next year but it is coming. The US semiconductor industry decried the Trump move. They know what is coming too.
More to the point, China is using Western Technology to increase its Military in quantitative and qualitative ways. It seem obvious to me that preventing China from using current TSMC nodes is prudent.
China isn't the good guys.
And if past history is anything to go by, the move by the US to limit Xeon sales to China (another foolish move) should give food for thought, it backfired spectacularly.
Now, with lithography and other areas, China will simply accelerate its plans by pumping money into developing 'homemade' solutions.
http://www.tbcoer.com/en/new/new-43-290.html
The US tried to make itself a technology gatekeeper - to the horror of the rest of the world, and while China is obviously the main focus of technology self dependency, ALL the other major players are moving to do the same.
China aren't the good guys and neither is the US.