If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology.Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
Yes. In those areas China is behind.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
Yes. In those areas China is behind.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
Yes. In those areas China is behind.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
"Semiconductor Scandal A Concerning Backdrop to Xi’s Pursuit of “Core Technologies”
China is 7 to 10 years behind in silicon. The U.S, EU, Japan, and South Korea are accelerating investment to maintain that lead.
I am fully up to date with current events but these are not current events.
It's the same old story. Very little has changed, in fact.
This is the second time you've posted that link in this thread and it is completely irrelevant.
You are acting like a bot now.
What Japan, South Korea and the EU are doing is NOT because of China and a desire to stay ahead of it.
They can't actually do that long term. What they are doing is reducing dependence on outside technologies. Yes, US technologies will be the worst affected.
As an aside, currently the ONLY thing preventing ASML selling EUV scanners to Chinese companies is purely political. The situation may even push ASML to completely erradicate what little US technology remains from its products. That would leave the US with the need to probably seek a revision of the Wassenaar Arrangement, something it cannot force unilaterally. It would need the agreement of other countries.
Of course, China (and everyone else) is already looking beyond EUV anyway.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
Yes. In those areas China is behind.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
"Semiconductor Scandal A Concerning Backdrop to Xi’s Pursuit of “Core Technologies”
China is 7 to 10 years behind in silicon. The U.S, EU, Japan, and South Korea are accelerating investment to maintain that lead.
I am fully up to date with current events but these are not current events.
It's the same old story. Very little has changed, in fact.
This is the second time you've posted that link in this thread and it is completely irrelevant.
You are acting like a bot now.
What Japan, South Korea and the EU are doing is NOT because of China and a desire to stay ahead of it.
They can't actually do that long term. What they are doing is reducing dependence on outside technologies. Yes, US technologies will be the worst affected.
As an aside, currently the ONLY thing preventing ASML selling EUV scanners to Chinese companies is purely political. The situation may even push ASML to completely erradicate what little US technology remains from its products. That would leave the US with the need to probably seek a revision of the Wassenaar Arrangement, something it cannot force unilaterally. It would need the agreement of other countries.
Of course, China (and everyone else) is already looking beyond EUV anyway.
LOL!
The truth is that China got caught violating human rights on a large scale, and having a history of such, that has caused a rapid reevaluation of technology transfer to China. Then, to top it off, China has attacked various countries, and entities, with its "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy", which has had the result of enhancing the very alliances that the Biden Administration is working to rebuild.
In the meantime, indigenous silicon manufacture in China (leading edge) is less than two percent of world output, so in fact, China is the entity that is being "worst affected". China's response is to increase tariffs on imported electronics components, making them an even less desirable place for assembly. Sure, iPhones get more expensive, but so do components for every other IT and consumer device manufactured in China.
Can you even admit that China is guilty of human rights violations? I mean, there is even resistance building to the Winter Olympics in China.
"In 2015, when the International Olympic Committee (ioc) awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics to Beijing, some people criticised the decision because of China’s human-rights record. Just in the previous few weeks China had rounded up hundreds of civil-society activists across the country. But the rival candidate for the games was another authoritarian state, Kazakhstan. Democracies such as Norway had pulled out of the race. And few people even imagined that, within two years, China would be building a gulag in Xinjiang to incarcerate more than 1m ethnic Uyghurs because of their religious and cultural beliefs.
Attitudes in the West towards China have hardened a lot since the ioc made its decision. In January America called the repression in Xinjiang “genocide”. On March 22nd it joined Britain, Canada and the European Union in a simultaneous declaration of sanctions against Chinese officials involved in that region’s atrocities. It was a rare co-ordinated attempt by Western powers to put pressure on China over its human-rights record. They have been riled, too, by China’s clampdown in Hong Kong and its growing challenge to liberal norms globally. The winter games, which are due to begin on February 4th, will be among the most controversial in Olympic history.
Will you even admit that China is committing human rights violations? That's reality.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
Yes. In those areas China is behind.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
"Semiconductor Scandal A Concerning Backdrop to Xi’s Pursuit of “Core Technologies”
China is 7 to 10 years behind in silicon. The U.S, EU, Japan, and South Korea are accelerating investment to maintain that lead.
I am fully up to date with current events but these are not current events.
It's the same old story. Very little has changed, in fact.
This is the second time you've posted that link in this thread and it is completely irrelevant.
You are acting like a bot now.
What Japan, South Korea and the EU are doing is NOT because of China and a desire to stay ahead of it.
They can't actually do that long term. What they are doing is reducing dependence on outside technologies. Yes, US technologies will be the worst affected.
As an aside, currently the ONLY thing preventing ASML selling EUV scanners to Chinese companies is purely political. The situation may even push ASML to completely erradicate what little US technology remains from its products. That would leave the US with the need to probably seek a revision of the Wassenaar Arrangement, something it cannot force unilaterally. It would need the agreement of other countries.
Of course, China (and everyone else) is already looking beyond EUV anyway.
LOL!
The truth is that China got caught violating human rights on a large scale, and having a history of such, that has caused a rapid reevaluation of technology transfer to China. Then, to top it off, China has attacked various countries, and entities, with its "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy", which has had the result of enhancing the very alliances that the Biden Administration is working to rebuild.
In the meantime, indigenous silicon manufacture in China (leading edge) is less than two percent of world output, so in fact, China is the entity that is being "worst affected". China's response is to increase tariffs on imported electronics components, making them an even less desirable place for assembly. Sure, iPhones get more expensive, but so do components for every other IT and consumer device manufactured in China.
Can you even admit that China is guilty of human rights violations? I mean, there is even resistance building to the Winter Olympics in China.
"In 2015, when the International Olympic Committee (ioc) awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics to Beijing, some people criticised the decision because of China’s human-rights record. Just in the previous few weeks China had rounded up hundreds of civil-society activists across the country. But the rival candidate for the games was another authoritarian state, Kazakhstan. Democracies such as Norway had pulled out of the race. And few people even imagined that, within two years, China would be building a gulag in Xinjiang to incarcerate more than 1m ethnic Uyghurs because of their religious and cultural beliefs.
Attitudes in the West towards China have hardened a lot since the ioc made its decision. In January America called the repression in Xinjiang “genocide”. On March 22nd it joined Britain, Canada and the European Union in a simultaneous declaration of sanctions against Chinese officials involved in that region’s atrocities. It was a rare co-ordinated attempt by Western powers to put pressure on China over its human-rights record. They have been riled, too, by China’s clampdown in Hong Kong and its growing challenge to liberal norms globally. The winter games, which are due to begin on February 4th, will be among the most controversial in Olympic history.
Will you even admit that China is committing human rights violations? That's reality.
I suppose that is proof that you are off on a tangent somewhere and have lost even yourself in your very own quagmire of nonsense.
Re-read what I have said.
What you just posted is irrevelant. Completely irrevelant (or rehashing what I have already said!). A pot pourri of irrevelance.
I'm not going to repeat myself.
Without doubt China has committed human rights violations. Without a shadow of doubt.
The US has also committed human rights violations.
The UK too!
That has nothing to do with ARMv9, semiconductor advances in design or manufacturing. And nothing to do with Huawei or the extraterritorial actions on it by the US.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
Yes. In those areas China is behind.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
"Semiconductor Scandal A Concerning Backdrop to Xi’s Pursuit of “Core Technologies”
China is 7 to 10 years behind in silicon. The U.S, EU, Japan, and South Korea are accelerating investment to maintain that lead.
I am fully up to date with current events but these are not current events.
It's the same old story. Very little has changed, in fact.
This is the second time you've posted that link in this thread and it is completely irrelevant.
You are acting like a bot now.
What Japan, South Korea and the EU are doing is NOT because of China and a desire to stay ahead of it.
They can't actually do that long term. What they are doing is reducing dependence on outside technologies. Yes, US technologies will be the worst affected.
As an aside, currently the ONLY thing preventing ASML selling EUV scanners to Chinese companies is purely political. The situation may even push ASML to completely erradicate what little US technology remains from its products. That would leave the US with the need to probably seek a revision of the Wassenaar Arrangement, something it cannot force unilaterally. It would need the agreement of other countries.
Of course, China (and everyone else) is already looking beyond EUV anyway.
LOL!
The truth is that China got caught violating human rights on a large scale, and having a history of such, that has caused a rapid reevaluation of technology transfer to China. Then, to top it off, China has attacked various countries, and entities, with its "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy", which has had the result of enhancing the very alliances that the Biden Administration is working to rebuild.
In the meantime, indigenous silicon manufacture in China (leading edge) is less than two percent of world output, so in fact, China is the entity that is being "worst affected". China's response is to increase tariffs on imported electronics components, making them an even less desirable place for assembly. Sure, iPhones get more expensive, but so do components for every other IT and consumer device manufactured in China.
Can you even admit that China is guilty of human rights violations? I mean, there is even resistance building to the Winter Olympics in China.
"In 2015, when the International Olympic Committee (ioc) awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics to Beijing, some people criticised the decision because of China’s human-rights record. Just in the previous few weeks China had rounded up hundreds of civil-society activists across the country. But the rival candidate for the games was another authoritarian state, Kazakhstan. Democracies such as Norway had pulled out of the race. And few people even imagined that, within two years, China would be building a gulag in Xinjiang to incarcerate more than 1m ethnic Uyghurs because of their religious and cultural beliefs.
Attitudes in the West towards China have hardened a lot since the ioc made its decision. In January America called the repression in Xinjiang “genocide”. On March 22nd it joined Britain, Canada and the European Union in a simultaneous declaration of sanctions against Chinese officials involved in that region’s atrocities. It was a rare co-ordinated attempt by Western powers to put pressure on China over its human-rights record. They have been riled, too, by China’s clampdown in Hong Kong and its growing challenge to liberal norms globally. The winter games, which are due to begin on February 4th, will be among the most controversial in Olympic history.
Will you even admit that China is committing human rights violations? That's reality.
I suppose that is proof that you are off on a tangent somewhere and have lost even yourself in your very own quagmire of nonsense.
Re-read what I have said.
What you just posted is irrevelant. Completely irrevelant (or rehashing what I have already said!). A pot pourri of irrevelance.
I'm not going to repeat myself.
Without doubt China has committed human rights violations. Without a shadow of doubt.
The US has also committed human rights violations.
The UK too!
That has nothing to do with ARMv9, semiconductor advances in design or manufacturing. And nothing to do with Huawei or the extraterritorial actions on it by the US.
So, given that China has committed Human Rights violations, you can imagine why many Western countries are reevaluating their trade relationships with China.
You fail, as always, to see the big picture, and for that, you will always be wrong in your prognostications.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
Yes. In those areas China is behind.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
"Semiconductor Scandal A Concerning Backdrop to Xi’s Pursuit of “Core Technologies”
China is 7 to 10 years behind in silicon. The U.S, EU, Japan, and South Korea are accelerating investment to maintain that lead.
I am fully up to date with current events but these are not current events.
It's the same old story. Very little has changed, in fact.
This is the second time you've posted that link in this thread and it is completely irrelevant.
You are acting like a bot now.
What Japan, South Korea and the EU are doing is NOT because of China and a desire to stay ahead of it.
They can't actually do that long term. What they are doing is reducing dependence on outside technologies. Yes, US technologies will be the worst affected.
As an aside, currently the ONLY thing preventing ASML selling EUV scanners to Chinese companies is purely political. The situation may even push ASML to completely erradicate what little US technology remains from its products. That would leave the US with the need to probably seek a revision of the Wassenaar Arrangement, something it cannot force unilaterally. It would need the agreement of other countries.
Of course, China (and everyone else) is already looking beyond EUV anyway.
LOL!
The truth is that China got caught violating human rights on a large scale, and having a history of such, that has caused a rapid reevaluation of technology transfer to China. Then, to top it off, China has attacked various countries, and entities, with its "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy", which has had the result of enhancing the very alliances that the Biden Administration is working to rebuild.
In the meantime, indigenous silicon manufacture in China (leading edge) is less than two percent of world output, so in fact, China is the entity that is being "worst affected". China's response is to increase tariffs on imported electronics components, making them an even less desirable place for assembly. Sure, iPhones get more expensive, but so do components for every other IT and consumer device manufactured in China.
Can you even admit that China is guilty of human rights violations? I mean, there is even resistance building to the Winter Olympics in China.
"In 2015, when the International Olympic Committee (ioc) awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics to Beijing, some people criticised the decision because of China’s human-rights record. Just in the previous few weeks China had rounded up hundreds of civil-society activists across the country. But the rival candidate for the games was another authoritarian state, Kazakhstan. Democracies such as Norway had pulled out of the race. And few people even imagined that, within two years, China would be building a gulag in Xinjiang to incarcerate more than 1m ethnic Uyghurs because of their religious and cultural beliefs.
Attitudes in the West towards China have hardened a lot since the ioc made its decision. In January America called the repression in Xinjiang “genocide”. On March 22nd it joined Britain, Canada and the European Union in a simultaneous declaration of sanctions against Chinese officials involved in that region’s atrocities. It was a rare co-ordinated attempt by Western powers to put pressure on China over its human-rights record. They have been riled, too, by China’s clampdown in Hong Kong and its growing challenge to liberal norms globally. The winter games, which are due to begin on February 4th, will be among the most controversial in Olympic history.
Will you even admit that China is committing human rights violations? That's reality.
I suppose that is proof that you are off on a tangent somewhere and have lost even yourself in your very own quagmire of nonsense.
Re-read what I have said.
What you just posted is irrevelant. Completely irrevelant (or rehashing what I have already said!). A pot pourri of irrevelance.
I'm not going to repeat myself.
Without doubt China has committed human rights violations. Without a shadow of doubt.
The US has also committed human rights violations.
The UK too!
That has nothing to do with ARMv9, semiconductor advances in design or manufacturing. And nothing to do with Huawei or the extraterritorial actions on it by the US.
So, given that China has committed Human Rights violations, you can imagine why many Western countries are reevaluating their trade relationships with China.
You fail, as always, to see the big picture, and for that, you will always be wrong in your prognostications.
Well, he sees the big picture and he did put it into the 3 sentences, isn't it? Looking into only the human right violations by China and IGNORING the human rights violations by US is NOT looking at the big picture.
Without doubt China has committed human rights violations. Without a shadow of doubt.
The US has also committed human rights violations.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
Yes. In those areas China is behind.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
"Semiconductor Scandal A Concerning Backdrop to Xi’s Pursuit of “Core Technologies”
China is 7 to 10 years behind in silicon. The U.S, EU, Japan, and South Korea are accelerating investment to maintain that lead.
I am fully up to date with current events but these are not current events.
It's the same old story. Very little has changed, in fact.
This is the second time you've posted that link in this thread and it is completely irrelevant.
You are acting like a bot now.
What Japan, South Korea and the EU are doing is NOT because of China and a desire to stay ahead of it.
They can't actually do that long term. What they are doing is reducing dependence on outside technologies. Yes, US technologies will be the worst affected.
As an aside, currently the ONLY thing preventing ASML selling EUV scanners to Chinese companies is purely political. The situation may even push ASML to completely erradicate what little US technology remains from its products. That would leave the US with the need to probably seek a revision of the Wassenaar Arrangement, something it cannot force unilaterally. It would need the agreement of other countries.
Of course, China (and everyone else) is already looking beyond EUV anyway.
LOL!
The truth is that China got caught violating human rights on a large scale, and having a history of such, that has caused a rapid reevaluation of technology transfer to China. Then, to top it off, China has attacked various countries, and entities, with its "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy", which has had the result of enhancing the very alliances that the Biden Administration is working to rebuild.
In the meantime, indigenous silicon manufacture in China (leading edge) is less than two percent of world output, so in fact, China is the entity that is being "worst affected". China's response is to increase tariffs on imported electronics components, making them an even less desirable place for assembly. Sure, iPhones get more expensive, but so do components for every other IT and consumer device manufactured in China.
Can you even admit that China is guilty of human rights violations? I mean, there is even resistance building to the Winter Olympics in China.
"In 2015, when the International Olympic Committee (ioc) awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics to Beijing, some people criticised the decision because of China’s human-rights record. Just in the previous few weeks China had rounded up hundreds of civil-society activists across the country. But the rival candidate for the games was another authoritarian state, Kazakhstan. Democracies such as Norway had pulled out of the race. And few people even imagined that, within two years, China would be building a gulag in Xinjiang to incarcerate more than 1m ethnic Uyghurs because of their religious and cultural beliefs.
Attitudes in the West towards China have hardened a lot since the ioc made its decision. In January America called the repression in Xinjiang “genocide”. On March 22nd it joined Britain, Canada and the European Union in a simultaneous declaration of sanctions against Chinese officials involved in that region’s atrocities. It was a rare co-ordinated attempt by Western powers to put pressure on China over its human-rights record. They have been riled, too, by China’s clampdown in Hong Kong and its growing challenge to liberal norms globally. The winter games, which are due to begin on February 4th, will be among the most controversial in Olympic history.
Will you even admit that China is committing human rights violations? That's reality.
I suppose that is proof that you are off on a tangent somewhere and have lost even yourself in your very own quagmire of nonsense.
Re-read what I have said.
What you just posted is irrevelant. Completely irrevelant (or rehashing what I have already said!). A pot pourri of irrevelance.
I'm not going to repeat myself.
Without doubt China has committed human rights violations. Without a shadow of doubt.
The US has also committed human rights violations.
The UK too!
That has nothing to do with ARMv9, semiconductor advances in design or manufacturing. And nothing to do with Huawei or the extraterritorial actions on it by the US.
So, given that China has committed Human Rights violations, you can imagine why many Western countries are reevaluating their trade relationships with China.
You fail, as always, to see the big picture, and for that, you will always be wrong in your prognostications.
Well, he sees the big picture and he did put it into the 3 sentences, isn't it? Looking into only the human right violations by China and IGNORING the human rights violations by US is NOT looking at the big picture.
Without doubt China has committed human rights violations. Without a shadow of doubt.
The US has also committed human rights violations.
The UK too!
Whataboutism again.
Lame
I don't ignore human rights violations by the U.S., past or present, and the administration currently in power in the U.S. does not either, and is making an effort to mitigate all human rights violations by the U.S. Government, but there certainly has been no recent claim by anyone of "genocide" by the the U.S. Governmnent.
In China, with its single party rule, there has been multiple instances of genocide occurring since its signing of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and there is evidence that there is genocide occurring in the Xin Jiang region of China as we speak.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
Yes. In those areas China is behind.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
"Semiconductor Scandal A Concerning Backdrop to Xi’s Pursuit of “Core Technologies”
China is 7 to 10 years behind in silicon. The U.S, EU, Japan, and South Korea are accelerating investment to maintain that lead.
I am fully up to date with current events but these are not current events.
It's the same old story. Very little has changed, in fact.
This is the second time you've posted that link in this thread and it is completely irrelevant.
You are acting like a bot now.
What Japan, South Korea and the EU are doing is NOT because of China and a desire to stay ahead of it.
They can't actually do that long term. What they are doing is reducing dependence on outside technologies. Yes, US technologies will be the worst affected.
As an aside, currently the ONLY thing preventing ASML selling EUV scanners to Chinese companies is purely political. The situation may even push ASML to completely erradicate what little US technology remains from its products. That would leave the US with the need to probably seek a revision of the Wassenaar Arrangement, something it cannot force unilaterally. It would need the agreement of other countries.
Of course, China (and everyone else) is already looking beyond EUV anyway.
LOL!
The truth is that China got caught violating human rights on a large scale, and having a history of such, that has caused a rapid reevaluation of technology transfer to China. Then, to top it off, China has attacked various countries, and entities, with its "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy", which has had the result of enhancing the very alliances that the Biden Administration is working to rebuild.
In the meantime, indigenous silicon manufacture in China (leading edge) is less than two percent of world output, so in fact, China is the entity that is being "worst affected". China's response is to increase tariffs on imported electronics components, making them an even less desirable place for assembly. Sure, iPhones get more expensive, but so do components for every other IT and consumer device manufactured in China.
Can you even admit that China is guilty of human rights violations? I mean, there is even resistance building to the Winter Olympics in China.
"In 2015, when the International Olympic Committee (ioc) awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics to Beijing, some people criticised the decision because of China’s human-rights record. Just in the previous few weeks China had rounded up hundreds of civil-society activists across the country. But the rival candidate for the games was another authoritarian state, Kazakhstan. Democracies such as Norway had pulled out of the race. And few people even imagined that, within two years, China would be building a gulag in Xinjiang to incarcerate more than 1m ethnic Uyghurs because of their religious and cultural beliefs.
Attitudes in the West towards China have hardened a lot since the ioc made its decision. In January America called the repression in Xinjiang “genocide”. On March 22nd it joined Britain, Canada and the European Union in a simultaneous declaration of sanctions against Chinese officials involved in that region’s atrocities. It was a rare co-ordinated attempt by Western powers to put pressure on China over its human-rights record. They have been riled, too, by China’s clampdown in Hong Kong and its growing challenge to liberal norms globally. The winter games, which are due to begin on February 4th, will be among the most controversial in Olympic history.
Will you even admit that China is committing human rights violations? That's reality.
I suppose that is proof that you are off on a tangent somewhere and have lost even yourself in your very own quagmire of nonsense.
Re-read what I have said.
What you just posted is irrevelant. Completely irrevelant (or rehashing what I have already said!). A pot pourri of irrevelance.
I'm not going to repeat myself.
Without doubt China has committed human rights violations. Without a shadow of doubt.
The US has also committed human rights violations.
The UK too!
That has nothing to do with ARMv9, semiconductor advances in design or manufacturing. And nothing to do with Huawei or the extraterritorial actions on it by the US.
Gee, if only those human rights violations, including genocide, were no longer occurring in China, you might have a point, but, yeah, still occurring.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
No, they’re not. They use vanilla ARM cores, and you must know that, so what’s the point? There’s also no evidence that their other cores are all that effective. They have been shown, several times, by Anandtech, to be lying about performance and efficiency. Frankly, I dontbtrushnmich of what they say. And neither should you.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.
Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.
As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000.
What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.
Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.
The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.
As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?
And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.
I think we should just wait and see on that one.
Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.
Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.
I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.
Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.
Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured.
Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.
A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.
But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.
Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc.
The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others.
This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you?
As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.
The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.
If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.
Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else?
Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything?
Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?
How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?
Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do.
Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it.
"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.
Thanks for playing.
Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.
You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.
Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?
Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.
Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.
You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.
I'm not surprised.
And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.
As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.
And in the spirit of Jaws...
"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-)
The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment.
That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.
Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon.
The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.
It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."
Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.
Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack.
The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.
And there you have it...
The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.
Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!
Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.
Wow! Is that news?
Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!
Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.
He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.
Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?
Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.
Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes!
Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS.
Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.
It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.
And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS?
In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.
That stack is only going to get bigger.
You've gone off the deep end.
Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not.
That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?
"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan
FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.
Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!
Sneaky bounder!
It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .
Where to begin....?
Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!
Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.
We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).
Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course).
They are even present in the US.
As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.
More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace.
Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?
And you are asking me to get real?
Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.
Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share.
Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.
It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!
The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.
Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.
Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.
It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.
I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.
R&D spending has been increased yet again.
They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact.
We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given.
But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm.
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
Yes. In those areas China is behind.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
"Semiconductor Scandal A Concerning Backdrop to Xi’s Pursuit of “Core Technologies”
China is 7 to 10 years behind in silicon. The U.S, EU, Japan, and South Korea are accelerating investment to maintain that lead.
I am fully up to date with current events but these are not current events.
It's the same old story. Very little has changed, in fact.
This is the second time you've posted that link in this thread and it is completely irrelevant.
You are acting like a bot now.
What Japan, South Korea and the EU are doing is NOT because of China and a desire to stay ahead of it.
They can't actually do that long term. What they are doing is reducing dependence on outside technologies. Yes, US technologies will be the worst affected.
As an aside, currently the ONLY thing preventing ASML selling EUV scanners to Chinese companies is purely political. The situation may even push ASML to completely erradicate what little US technology remains from its products. That would leave the US with the need to probably seek a revision of the Wassenaar Arrangement, something it cannot force unilaterally. It would need the agreement of other countries.
Of course, China (and everyone else) is already looking beyond EUV anyway.
LOL!
The truth is that China got caught violating human rights on a large scale, and having a history of such, that has caused a rapid reevaluation of technology transfer to China. Then, to top it off, China has attacked various countries, and entities, with its "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy", which has had the result of enhancing the very alliances that the Biden Administration is working to rebuild.
In the meantime, indigenous silicon manufacture in China (leading edge) is less than two percent of world output, so in fact, China is the entity that is being "worst affected". China's response is to increase tariffs on imported electronics components, making them an even less desirable place for assembly. Sure, iPhones get more expensive, but so do components for every other IT and consumer device manufactured in China.
Can you even admit that China is guilty of human rights violations? I mean, there is even resistance building to the Winter Olympics in China.
"In 2015, when the International Olympic Committee (ioc) awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics to Beijing, some people criticised the decision because of China’s human-rights record. Just in the previous few weeks China had rounded up hundreds of civil-society activists across the country. But the rival candidate for the games was another authoritarian state, Kazakhstan. Democracies such as Norway had pulled out of the race. And few people even imagined that, within two years, China would be building a gulag in Xinjiang to incarcerate more than 1m ethnic Uyghurs because of their religious and cultural beliefs.
Attitudes in the West towards China have hardened a lot since the ioc made its decision. In January America called the repression in Xinjiang “genocide”. On March 22nd it joined Britain, Canada and the European Union in a simultaneous declaration of sanctions against Chinese officials involved in that region’s atrocities. It was a rare co-ordinated attempt by Western powers to put pressure on China over its human-rights record. They have been riled, too, by China’s clampdown in Hong Kong and its growing challenge to liberal norms globally. The winter games, which are due to begin on February 4th, will be among the most controversial in Olympic history.
Will you even admit that China is committing human rights violations? That's reality.
I suppose that is proof that you are off on a tangent somewhere and have lost even yourself in your very own quagmire of nonsense.
Re-read what I have said.
What you just posted is irrevelant. Completely irrevelant (or rehashing what I have already said!). A pot pourri of irrevelance.
I'm not going to repeat myself.
Without doubt China has committed human rights violations. Without a shadow of doubt.
The US has also committed human rights violations.
The UK too!
That has nothing to do with ARMv9, semiconductor advances in design or manufacturing. And nothing to do with Huawei or the extraterritorial actions on it by the US.
So, given that China has committed Human Rights violations, you can imagine why many Western countries are reevaluating their trade relationships with China.
You fail, as always, to see the big picture, and for that, you will always be wrong in your prognostications.
I am very sorry to have to define what you are saying as irrelevant nonsense but is there any other word for it?
Put simply, you say this (and I quote) :
"... you can imagine why many Western countries are reevaluating their trade relationships with China"
Have you forgotten why Trump started his trade war with China?
It wasn't national security, human rights, espionage or any of that stuff.
So what was it all about?...
The trade deficit!
Please try to get your head around that.
Take a minute!
If the US was 'reevaluating its trade relationship' with China it wasn't bothered in the slightest by human rights. No.
The whole point was to get China to commit itself to doing MORE trade with the US. To the tune of literally hundreds of billions of US dollars.
How Trump went about it is now the stuff of legend. Now even he knows that trade wars aren't so easy to win. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Worse is still to come and precisely because of his 'entity list' shenanigans.
And, you know what? Even under Biden, the US still wants (needs) to do business with China.
But, and just to drive the point home, the US trade deficit is not only with China - it is basically with the whole world!
Trump even put the EU on warning about the US, ehem, 'reevaluating its trade relationship' with them.
He just had the small matter of a trade war with China to 'win' first.
And yes, I can tell you that Human Rights Watch has found cases of human rights violations in EU countries too! That hasn't bothered the US (which of course has a list of violations as long as your arm in that area!).
No. What counts are two things. Money and being the 'top dog' in key fields.
Everything else (human rights violations included) plays second fiddle.
Hence the need for the US to reduce its trade deficit with China.
You will see a lot of blustering. Pages of text. Sanctions even (but not enough to truly close down trade links).
If you are trying to link human rights with trade policy you sir, are barking up the wrong tree.
Wait what? I thought Apple was an ARM Holdings co-founder, had a permanent architectural license and their own custom design for PCs that was radically different from - and better than - the small core design for embedded systems that the ARM pushes for Cortex-A for smartphones and the somewhat better (but still not very good) Marvell and N1 core designs that are used on servers (which again aren't very good as they constitute 3% of the market, forcing Amazon, Microsoft, Google etc. to also make their own core designs and causing Marvell, HP and most other ARM server vendors to drop out of the market leaving Ampere as the only player)? Even Fujitsu, who makes ARM supercomputers, relies on a custom design (a combination of the RISC license based on SPARC that they bought from Sun back in the day and things they licensed from ARM).
While the M1 chip has a single core score that rivals Intel Core i7 and i9, the best Cortex Core for PCs and mobile barely surpasses the Intel Pentium. (Qualcomm is hyping up the multicore score, but even there it takes 8 performance cores to merely rival the Geekbench 5 score for the quad core Intel i5). I thought that Apple having their own big core design that ARM Holdings can't come close to was why Nvidia's purchase of ARM Holdings is like "meh" for Apple as their custom CPU and GPU designs are much better - by several times - than Cortex, Mali (the ARM Holdings GPU) and even Nvidia (either their old GPU architecture or their new Ampere one) anyway.
The best I've seen from ARM is the Cortex-X1 which is used in the Snapdragon 888 which at 5nm ran neck-and-neck with A11's 7nm Lightning cores - Lightning won overall but the X1 won at floating point. The 888 is a triple tier SoC with a single X1 at the top as its single, highest performance core, and I believe it's a five wide design.
In 2008, Apple acquired PA Semi and worked with cash strapped Intrinsity and Samsung to produce a FastCore Cortex-A8; the frenemies famously split and Apple used their IP and Imagination's PowerVR to create the A4 and Samsung took their tech to produce the Exynos 3. Apple acquired Intrinsity and continued to hire engineering talent from IBM's Cell and XCPU design teams, and hired Johny Srouji from IBM who worked on the POWER7 line to direct the effort.
This divergence from standard ARM designs was continued by Apple who continued to nurture and build their Silicon Design Team (capitalized out of respect) for a decade, ignoring standard ARM designs building their own architecture, improving and optimizing it year by year for the last decade.
Whereas other ARM processor makers like Qualcomm and Samsung pretty much now use standard ARM designed cores - Apple has their own designs and architecture and has greatly expanded their own processor acumen to the point where the Firestorm cores in the A14 and M1 are the most sophisticated processors in the world with an eight wide processor design with a 690 instruction execution queue with a massive reorder buffer and the arithmetic units to back it up - which means its out-of-order execution unit can execute up to eight instructions _simultaneously._
x86 processor makers are hampered by the CISC design and a variable instruction length. This means that at most they can produce a three wide design and even for that the decoder would have to be fiendishly clever, as it would have to guess where one instruction ended and the next began.
There's a problem shared with x86-64 processor makers and Windows - they never met an instruction or feature they didn't like. What happens then is you get a build-up of crud that no one uses, but it still consumes energy and engineering time to keep working.
AMD can get better single core speed by pushing up clocks (and dealing with the exponentially increased heat though chiplets are probably much harder to cool), and Intel by reducing the number of cores (the top of the 10 core 20 thread 10900K actually had to be shaved to achieve enough surface area to cool the chip so it at 14nm had reached the limits of physics). Both run so hot they are soon in danger of running into Moore's Wall.
Apple OTOH ruthlessly pares underused or unoptimizable features.
When Apple determined that ARMv7 (32 bit ARM) was unoptimizable, they wrote it out of iOS, and removed those logic blocks from their CPUs in two years, repurposing the silicon real estate for more productive things. Intel, AMD, and yes even Qualcomm couldn't do that in a decade.
Apple continues that with everything - not enough people using Force Touch - deprecate it, remove it from the hardware, and replace it with Haptic Touch. Gone.
Here's another secret of efficiency - make it a goal. Last year on the A13 Bionic used in the iPhone 11s, the Apple Silicon Team introduced hundreds of voltage domains so they could turn off parts of the chip not in use. Following their annual cadence, they increased the speed of the Lightning high performance and the Thunder high efficiency cores by 20% despite no change in the 7nm mask size. As an aside, they increased the speed of matrix multiplication and division by six times (used in machine learning).
This year they increased the speed of the Firestorm high performance and Icestorm high efficiency cores by another 20% while dropping the mask size from 7nm to 5nm. That's a hell of a compounding rate and explains how they got to where they are. Rumor has it they've bought all the 3nm capacity from TSMC for the A16 (and probably M2) next year.
Wintel fans would deny the efficacy of the A series processors and say they were mobile chips, as if they used slower silicon with wheels on the bottom or more sluggish electrons.
What they were were high efficiency chips which were passively cooled and living in a glass sandwich. Remove them from that environment where they could breathe more easily and boost the clocks a tad and they became a raging beast.
People say that the other processor makers will catch up in a couple of years, but that's really tough to see. Apple Silicon is the culmination of a decade of intense processor design financed by a company with very deep pockets - who is fully cognizant of the competitive advantage Apple Silicon affords. Here's an article in Anandtech comparing the Firestorm cores to the competing ARM and x86 cores. It's very readable for an article of its ilk:
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Apple also has the ability to smoothly pivot to another architecture, such as Risk V, if it desires.
While I agree that Apple could pivot to Risc-V if they needed/wanted to, I can't envision any scenario in the next decade where that would be something they would do. I guess the rumors could be wrong and there may be more architecture limitations in their license than supposed but I've heard nothing like that. Apple could stay on Aarch64v8 forever and add their own extensions as needed to keep up with x86, Aarch64, and Risc-V. Since they have good development access to LLVM and other toolchain software, that won't be a limitation either.
I can’t see Apple going there. Right now, RISC-5 is so efficient because it’s a very simple core. As it becomes more complex, and competitive, the efficiency will come down. Even though it can be used as a simple general purpose processor, it’s really designed to be a controller of other cores, such as ISP’s, machine learning, etc.
If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence?
See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.
The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.
A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.
Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There are advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios.
Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.
It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.
It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course.
In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc.
Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.
It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too.
Your argument lost all credibility when you said Android is open source. Whilst it’s foundations may be, the Android as used in smartphones has long broken any open source licensing agreement (typically the data harvest requirements for Google) to the point where it’s totally proprietary. Even with Harmony & proprietary silicon, Huawei are still bound to Google.
What does the 'A' in AOSP stand for?
If an Android vendor were to keep Android but build the whole stack what Android would it use?
Clearly not GMS Android nor any Android that wasn't open source.
Wasn't that painfully clear?
Yes, I'm talking about AOSP.
AOSP is rather strange. Google has the licensing for both, dependent on the other. You can’t legally call AOSP “Android” and you can’t make legally “Android” devices if you also make AOSP devices. You can’t legally use any of Google’s services on AOSP either. So if you do use AOSP, which Google has considered as a stepping stone from cheap Android phone makers to more expensive makers, you have to use third party add-ones, such as the Google Play store, etc.
‘’yes, of course, much of this can be illegally side loaded in some way, as Huawei was trying to get people to do, but it’s still illegal, and of course, you don’t condone that.
Comments
One tidbit...
"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]
No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.
All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.
That makes your point about China irrelevant.
Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY.
Take a minute and let that sink in.
These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.
Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security!
The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies.
Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards.
If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even.
This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself?
It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei.
The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism.
Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened!
You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go.
Remind me. What was this thread about?
More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-chinese-hackers-working-ministry-state-security-charged-global-computer-intrusion
Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?
"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not."
I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.
'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.
Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!
But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.
I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.
And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day.
China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.
Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.
The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.
This is what the US officially believes:
"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".
The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.
Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.
https://jamestown.org/program/semiconductor-scandal-a-concerning-backdrop-to-xis-pursuit-of-core-technologies/
"Semiconductor Scandal A Concerning Backdrop to Xi’s Pursuit of “Core Technologies”
China is 7 to 10 years behind in silicon. The U.S, EU, Japan, and South Korea are accelerating investment to maintain that lead.
It's the same old story. Very little has changed, in fact.
This is the second time you've posted that link in this thread and it is completely irrelevant.
You are acting like a bot now.
What Japan, South Korea and the EU are doing is NOT because of China and a desire to stay ahead of it.
They can't actually do that long term. What they are doing is reducing dependence on outside technologies. Yes, US technologies will be the worst affected.
As an aside, currently the ONLY thing preventing ASML selling EUV scanners to Chinese companies is purely political. The situation may even push ASML to completely erradicate what little US technology remains from its products. That would leave the US with the need to probably seek a revision of the Wassenaar Arrangement, something it cannot force unilaterally. It would need the agreement of other countries.
Of course, China (and everyone else) is already looking beyond EUV anyway.
The truth is that China got caught violating human rights on a large scale, and having a history of such, that has caused a rapid reevaluation of technology transfer to China. Then, to top it off, China has attacked various countries, and entities, with its "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy", which has had the result of enhancing the very alliances that the Biden Administration is working to rebuild.
In the meantime, indigenous silicon manufacture in China (leading edge) is less than two percent of world output, so in fact, China is the entity that is being "worst affected". China's response is to increase tariffs on imported electronics components, making them an even less desirable place for assembly. Sure, iPhones get more expensive, but so do components for every other IT and consumer device manufactured in China.
Can you even admit that China is guilty of human rights violations? I mean, there is even resistance building to the Winter Olympics in China.
https://www.economist.com/china/2021/03/27/will-countries-boycott-chinas-olympics-in-2022
"In 2015, when the International Olympic Committee (ioc) awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics to Beijing, some people criticised the decision because of China’s human-rights record. Just in the previous few weeks China had rounded up hundreds of civil-society activists across the country. But the rival candidate for the games was another authoritarian state, Kazakhstan. Democracies such as Norway had pulled out of the race. And few people even imagined that, within two years, China would be building a gulag in Xinjiang to incarcerate more than 1m ethnic Uyghurs because of their religious and cultural beliefs.
Attitudes in the West towards China have hardened a lot since the ioc made its decision. In January America called the repression in Xinjiang “genocide”. On March 22nd it joined Britain, Canada and the European Union in a simultaneous declaration of sanctions against Chinese officials involved in that region’s atrocities. It was a rare co-ordinated attempt by Western powers to put pressure on China over its human-rights record. They have been riled, too, by China’s clampdown in Hong Kong and its growing challenge to liberal norms globally. The winter games, which are due to begin on February 4th, will be among the most controversial in Olympic history.
Will you even admit that China is committing human rights violations? That's reality.Re-read what I have said.
What you just posted is irrevelant. Completely irrevelant (or rehashing what I have already said!). A pot pourri of irrevelance.
I'm not going to repeat myself.
Without doubt China has committed human rights violations. Without a shadow of doubt.
The US has also committed human rights violations.
The UK too!
That has nothing to do with ARMv9, semiconductor advances in design or manufacturing. And nothing to do with Huawei or the extraterritorial actions on it by the US.
You fail, as always, to see the big picture, and for that, you will always be wrong in your prognostications.
Without doubt China has committed human rights violations. Without a shadow of doubt.
The US has also committed human rights violations.
The UK too!
Lame
I don't ignore human rights violations by the U.S., past or present, and the administration currently in power in the U.S. does not either, and is making an effort to mitigate all human rights violations by the U.S. Government, but there certainly has been no recent claim by anyone of "genocide" by the the U.S. Governmnent.
In China, with its single party rule, there has been multiple instances of genocide occurring since its signing of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and there is evidence that there is genocide occurring in the Xin Jiang region of China as we speak.
Don't be a tool of propaganda.
Put simply, you say this (and I quote) :
"... you can imagine why many Western countries are reevaluating their trade relationships with China"
Have you forgotten why Trump started his trade war with China?
It wasn't national security, human rights, espionage or any of that stuff.
So what was it all about?...
The trade deficit!
Please try to get your head around that.
Take a minute!
If the US was 'reevaluating its trade relationship' with China it wasn't bothered in the slightest by human rights. No.
The whole point was to get China to commit itself to doing MORE trade with the US. To the tune of literally hundreds of billions of US dollars.
How Trump went about it is now the stuff of legend. Now even he knows that trade wars aren't so easy to win. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Worse is still to come and precisely because of his 'entity list' shenanigans.
And, you know what? Even under Biden, the US still wants (needs) to do business with China.
But, and just to drive the point home, the US trade deficit is not only with China - it is basically with the whole world!
Trump even put the EU on warning about the US, ehem, 'reevaluating its trade relationship' with them.
He just had the small matter of a trade war with China to 'win' first.
And yes, I can tell you that Human Rights Watch has found cases of human rights violations in EU countries too! That hasn't bothered the US (which of course has a list of violations as long as your arm in that area!).
No. What counts are two things. Money and being the 'top dog' in key fields.
Everything else (human rights violations included) plays second fiddle.
Hence the need for the US to reduce its trade deficit with China.
You will see a lot of blustering. Pages of text. Sanctions even (but not enough to truly close down trade links).
If you are trying to link human rights with trade policy you sir, are barking up the wrong tree.
‘’yes, of course, much of this can be illegally side loaded in some way, as Huawei was trying to get people to do, but it’s still illegal, and of course, you don’t condone that.