Apple's 5G modem could land in 2023 iPhone, Kuo says

Posted:
in General Discussion edited May 10
Apple's long-rumored first foray into cellular modem technology could debut as soon as 2023, according to analyst Ming-Chi Kuo.

5G iPhone


Kuo in a note to investors predicts Apple's 5G baseband chip could power iPhone cellular connectivity in 2023, though the company might push back integration to a later date.

"We predict that the iPhone will adopt Apple's own design 5G baseband chips in 2023 at the earliest," Kuo said. "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

The analyst previously predicted an Apple-designed modem to land in 2022 as a replacement for Qualcomm's 5G silicon.

Reports of Apple's work on 5G modem designs first surfaced in 2019, when the tech giant was using Intel for its baseband chip needs. Industry rumblings later that year claimed Apple accelerated development of its own chips after Intel showed slow progress on 5G.

Intel ultimately exited the modem business after Apple and Qualcomm settled a legal dispute over cellular technology and chip licensing. Apple purchased Intel's modem assets, including important patent portfolios, to bolster in-house development projects.

Qualcomm reentered Apple's supply chain with a multi-year chip agreement and is currently the exclusive provider of all iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch modems.

Apple's first 5G product, iPhone 12, hit market last year and was followed by cellular-enabled iPad Pro models in April.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,315member
    I want to see these chips land on MacBooks.

    I feel like I’ve read this article before. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 27
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,764member
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    edited May 10 tokyojimuGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 3 of 27
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,027member
    Kuo's prior item on this subject predicted Apple's proprietary 5G in 2022 or 2023. This one says 2023 at the earliest, but maybe later. I'm still trying to figure out how the oft-applied "more accurate than most" honorific for Kuo is calculated. Seems like Kuo's most oft-reported notes lately are corrections of prior notes. Mind you, I totally get that the pandemic has screwed things up for everyone, and that it also appears that Apple may actually be releasing decoy info that gets picked up by prognosticators, but I'm just trying to figure out how any one analyst gets commonly noted as better at this than other analysts.
    llamawatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 27
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 27
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,764member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 6 of 27
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,471member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
  • Reply 8 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,471member
    It will be interesting to see where 5G goes -- both in the U.S. and throughout the world.

    It has the potential for at least partially replacing the old Coax and Fiber -- especially as the world integrates around mobile technologies.

    But, one thing is for sure:   As technology and cloud computing grow and expand communications will be a requirement for future growth.
  • Reply 9 of 27
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.
    edited May 11 watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,471member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
  • Reply 11 of 27
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
    Read more; be better informed, and if you can't provide a link to your any of your assertions, then quietly go away.

    China hasn't surpassed the U.S. in GDP, and isn't likely to in the most optimistic scenario, before the end of this decade, 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/new-chart-shows-china-gdp-could-overtake-us-sooner-as-covid-took-its-toll.html

    “This (divergence in growth) is consistent with our view that the pandemic has been a much larger blow to the US economy than China’s economy,” Rob Subbaraman of Nomura said in an email Friday. “We believe that on reasonable growth projections the size of China’s economy in USD terms will overtake the US in 2028.”

    If, in fact China does eventually surpass the U.S. GDP, it is worth noting that the U.S. is at less than 25% of the China's population.

    The recent trend in the West to reduce sourcing from China, will almost certainly reduce China's chance of overtaking the U.S. Much of the reduction, is due to China's Human Rights violations, and China's strangulation of freedom in Hong Kong.

    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/1e07d836/ces-pub-asiapacific-111120.pdf

    "Rarely has a national challenge been defined and dated so precisely by a competitor nation. To the extent that any great power does today, China under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule has a set of official goals and plans to make itself great again by 2049. Most of the foundational work is slated for completion by the halfway mark: 2035.2

    2035 thus represents a key milestone in PRC domestic politics. Measured by China’s core planning and development metronome—the Five-Year Plan—2035 is only three decision cycles away. Furthermore, “by 2035, China’s military leaders seek to complete military modernization.”3 It is also the year by which the State Council’s Development Research Centre projects that the United States may no longer be the global economic superpower and the point when China’s economy will likely have surpassed America’s in sheer size.4

    If official PRC projections are right, the global effects would be substantial— particularly if Beijing’s rise further dilutes Washington’s global economic and military influence. But if they are wrong—which an increasing array of demographic, economic, and diplomatic signals suggests is the case—the effects could be even more profound.

    There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years.5 If China displayed the demographics, financial profile, and real economy metrics that the United States did between 1890 and 1920, this would suggest Beijing’s narrative could in fact prove correct.

    But emerging reality is very different. China’s incipient demographic decline, tremendous environmental and resource stresses,slowing economic growth, and the rising external backlash against its revisionist aggression are in fact establishing conditions within which an appropriately tailored U.S. competitive strategy can leverage America’s enduring strength and underappreciated future growth potential. Done right, this can enable Washington to lead an effort that would benefit billions of people by protecting, renewing, and improving many aspects of the Asia-Pacific diplomatic, economic, and security architecture."

    Bottom line, China is today an expanding authoritarian power, is belligerent, and should be resisted by the West, and interestingly enough, the West is actually coming around to that fact. At the same time, China's population is aging and will be top heavy with Seniors in 2035, so these demographics might be the actual downfall of the PRC. 
    edited May 12 watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,471member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
    Read more; be better informed, and if you can't provide a link to your any of your assertions, then quietly go away.

    China hasn't surpassed the U.S. in GDP, and isn't likely to in the most optimistic scenario, before the end of this decade, 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/new-chart-shows-china-gdp-could-overtake-us-sooner-as-covid-took-its-toll.html

    “This (divergence in growth) is consistent with our view that the pandemic has been a much larger blow to the US economy than China’s economy,” Rob Subbaraman of Nomura said in an email Friday. “We believe that on reasonable growth projections the size of China’s economy in USD terms will overtake the US in 2028.”

    If, in fact China does eventually surpass the U.S. GDP, it is worth noting that the U.S. is at less than 25% of the China's population.

    The recent trend in the West to reduce sourcing from China, will almost certainly reduce China's chance of overtaking the U.S. Much of the reduction, is due to China's Human Rights violations, and China's strangulation of freedom in Hong Kong.

    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/1e07d836/ces-pub-asiapacific-111120.pdf

    "Rarely has a national challenge been defined and dated so precisely by a competitor nation. To the extent that any great power does today, China under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule has a set of official goals and plans to make itself great again by 2049. Most of the foundational work is slated for completion by the halfway mark: 2035.2

    2035 thus represents a key milestone in PRC domestic politics. Measured by China’s core planning and development metronome—the Five-Year Plan—2035 is only three decision cycles away. Furthermore, “by 2035, China’s military leaders seek to complete military modernization.”3 It is also the year by which the State Council’s Development Research Centre projects that the United States may no longer be the global economic superpower and the point when China’s economy will likely have surpassed America’s in sheer size.4

    If official PRC projections are right, the global effects would be substantial— particularly if Beijing’s rise further dilutes Washington’s global economic and military influence. But if they are wrong—which an increasing array of demographic, economic, and diplomatic signals suggests is the case—the effects could be even more profound.

    There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years.5 If China displayed the demographics, financial profile, and real economy metrics that the United States did between 1890 and 1920, this would suggest Beijing’s narrative could in fact prove correct.

    But emerging reality is very different. China’s incipient demographic decline, tremendous environmental and resource stresses,slowing economic growth, and the rising external backlash against its revisionist aggression are in fact establishing conditions within which an appropriately tailored U.S. competitive strategy can leverage America’s enduring strength and underappreciated future growth potential. Done right, this can enable Washington to lead an effort that would benefit billions of people by protecting, renewing, and improving many aspects of the Asia-Pacific diplomatic, economic, and security architecture."

    Bottom line, China is today an expanding authoritarian power, is belligerent, and should be resisted by the West, and interestingly enough, the West is actually coming around to that fact. At the same time, China's population is aging and will be top heavy with Seniors in 2035, so these demographics might be the actual downfall of the PRC. 

    Sorry, just calling bull to the bull. 

    But you finally got one thing right:  
    "There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years."

    Except it's not an assumption -- and it is espoused by most western economists -- and they are saying China won't just lead Asia, but the world.  Right now it's a near certainty rather than an assumption.   And even the author of the "we hate China" smear campaigns admitted that that was the motivation for the smear campaign.

    For myself, I don't want to see that happen.  But I blame the U.S. for falling behind rather than China for succeeding.   It's how free market capitalism works.  The cream rises to the top till somebody comes up with something better.

    Your comparison to the U.S. from 1880 - 1920 is appropriate:   Working conditions were abominable by today's standards:   12 hours work days, 6 days a week in horrible, dangerous conditions.  Garment workers were literally locked into the factories where they worked like prisoners.   Miners lived in company housing and shopped at the company store -- where they often had to spend more than they made so they ended up owing money to the company they worked for.   Steel workers were literally shot down if they tried to strike and robber barons ruled the land -- including local, state and federal governments.   If the company could not manage a strike the robber barons called in state or federal militias to shut it down.    If the workers objected they were fired (no unemployment benefits either) and replaced with some new group of immigrants -- say from eastern or southern Europe instead of western Europe.

    Those conditions would not be tolerated here today (neither would they be tolerated in China).  But it is what launched the U.S. into its role as world leader.




    edited May 12
  • Reply 13 of 27
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
    Read more; be better informed, and if you can't provide a link to your any of your assertions, then quietly go away.

    China hasn't surpassed the U.S. in GDP, and isn't likely to in the most optimistic scenario, before the end of this decade, 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/new-chart-shows-china-gdp-could-overtake-us-sooner-as-covid-took-its-toll.html

    “This (divergence in growth) is consistent with our view that the pandemic has been a much larger blow to the US economy than China’s economy,” Rob Subbaraman of Nomura said in an email Friday. “We believe that on reasonable growth projections the size of China’s economy in USD terms will overtake the US in 2028.”

    If, in fact China does eventually surpass the U.S. GDP, it is worth noting that the U.S. is at less than 25% of the China's population.

    The recent trend in the West to reduce sourcing from China, will almost certainly reduce China's chance of overtaking the U.S. Much of the reduction, is due to China's Human Rights violations, and China's strangulation of freedom in Hong Kong.

    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/1e07d836/ces-pub-asiapacific-111120.pdf

    "Rarely has a national challenge been defined and dated so precisely by a competitor nation. To the extent that any great power does today, China under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule has a set of official goals and plans to make itself great again by 2049. Most of the foundational work is slated for completion by the halfway mark: 2035.2

    2035 thus represents a key milestone in PRC domestic politics. Measured by China’s core planning and development metronome—the Five-Year Plan—2035 is only three decision cycles away. Furthermore, “by 2035, China’s military leaders seek to complete military modernization.”3 It is also the year by which the State Council’s Development Research Centre projects that the United States may no longer be the global economic superpower and the point when China’s economy will likely have surpassed America’s in sheer size.4

    If official PRC projections are right, the global effects would be substantial— particularly if Beijing’s rise further dilutes Washington’s global economic and military influence. But if they are wrong—which an increasing array of demographic, economic, and diplomatic signals suggests is the case—the effects could be even more profound.

    There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years.5 If China displayed the demographics, financial profile, and real economy metrics that the United States did between 1890 and 1920, this would suggest Beijing’s narrative could in fact prove correct.

    But emerging reality is very different. China’s incipient demographic decline, tremendous environmental and resource stresses,slowing economic growth, and the rising external backlash against its revisionist aggression are in fact establishing conditions within which an appropriately tailored U.S. competitive strategy can leverage America’s enduring strength and underappreciated future growth potential. Done right, this can enable Washington to lead an effort that would benefit billions of people by protecting, renewing, and improving many aspects of the Asia-Pacific diplomatic, economic, and security architecture."

    Bottom line, China is today an expanding authoritarian power, is belligerent, and should be resisted by the West, and interestingly enough, the West is actually coming around to that fact. At the same time, China's population is aging and will be top heavy with Seniors in 2035, so these demographics might be the actual downfall of the PRC. 

    Sorry, just calling bull to the bull. 

    But you finally got one thing right:  
    "There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years."

    Except it's not an assumption -- and it is espoused by western economists -- and they are saying China won't just lead Asia, but the world.  Right now it's a near certainty rather than an assumption.   And even the author of the "we hate China" smear campaigns admitted that that was the motivation for the smear campaign.

    For myself, I don't want to see that happen.  But I blame the U.S. for falling behind rather than China for succeeding.   It's how free market capitalism works.  The cream rises to the top till somebody comes up with something better.

    Links please, or are you incapable of supporting your bullshit arguments with facts?

    edited May 12 watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 27
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
    Read more; be better informed, and if you can't provide a link to your any of your assertions, then quietly go away.

    China hasn't surpassed the U.S. in GDP, and isn't likely to in the most optimistic scenario, before the end of this decade, 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/new-chart-shows-china-gdp-could-overtake-us-sooner-as-covid-took-its-toll.html

    “This (divergence in growth) is consistent with our view that the pandemic has been a much larger blow to the US economy than China’s economy,” Rob Subbaraman of Nomura said in an email Friday. “We believe that on reasonable growth projections the size of China’s economy in USD terms will overtake the US in 2028.”

    If, in fact China does eventually surpass the U.S. GDP, it is worth noting that the U.S. is at less than 25% of the China's population.

    The recent trend in the West to reduce sourcing from China, will almost certainly reduce China's chance of overtaking the U.S. Much of the reduction, is due to China's Human Rights violations, and China's strangulation of freedom in Hong Kong.

    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/1e07d836/ces-pub-asiapacific-111120.pdf

    "Rarely has a national challenge been defined and dated so precisely by a competitor nation. To the extent that any great power does today, China under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule has a set of official goals and plans to make itself great again by 2049. Most of the foundational work is slated for completion by the halfway mark: 2035.2

    2035 thus represents a key milestone in PRC domestic politics. Measured by China’s core planning and development metronome—the Five-Year Plan—2035 is only three decision cycles away. Furthermore, “by 2035, China’s military leaders seek to complete military modernization.”3 It is also the year by which the State Council’s Development Research Centre projects that the United States may no longer be the global economic superpower and the point when China’s economy will likely have surpassed America’s in sheer size.4

    If official PRC projections are right, the global effects would be substantial— particularly if Beijing’s rise further dilutes Washington’s global economic and military influence. But if they are wrong—which an increasing array of demographic, economic, and diplomatic signals suggests is the case—the effects could be even more profound.

    There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years.5 If China displayed the demographics, financial profile, and real economy metrics that the United States did between 1890 and 1920, this would suggest Beijing’s narrative could in fact prove correct.

    But emerging reality is very different. China’s incipient demographic decline, tremendous environmental and resource stresses,slowing economic growth, and the rising external backlash against its revisionist aggression are in fact establishing conditions within which an appropriately tailored U.S. competitive strategy can leverage America’s enduring strength and underappreciated future growth potential. Done right, this can enable Washington to lead an effort that would benefit billions of people by protecting, renewing, and improving many aspects of the Asia-Pacific diplomatic, economic, and security architecture."

    Bottom line, China is today an expanding authoritarian power, is belligerent, and should be resisted by the West, and interestingly enough, the West is actually coming around to that fact. At the same time, China's population is aging and will be top heavy with Seniors in 2035, so these demographics might be the actual downfall of the PRC. 

    Sorry, just calling bull to the bull. 

    But you finally got one thing right:  
    "There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years."

    Except it's not an assumption -- and it is espoused by most western economists -- and they are saying China won't just lead Asia, but the world.  Right now it's a near certainty rather than an assumption.   And even the author of the "we hate China" smear campaigns admitted that that was the motivation for the smear campaign.

    For myself, I don't want to see that happen.  But I blame the U.S. for falling behind rather than China for succeeding.   It's how free market capitalism works.  The cream rises to the top till somebody comes up with something better.

    Your comparison to the U.S. from 1880 - 1920 is appropriate:   Working conditions were abominable by today's standards:   12 hours work days, 6 days a week in horrible, dangerous conditions.  Garment workers were literally locked into the factories where they worked like prisoners.   Miners lived in company housing and shopped at the company store -- where they often had to spend more than they made so they ended up owing money to the company they worked for.   Steel workers were literally shot down if they tried to strike and robber barons ruled the land -- including local, state and federal governments.   If the company could not manage a strike the robber barons called in state or federal militias to shut it down.    If the workers objected they were fired (no unemployment benefits either) and replaced with some new group of immigrants -- say from eastern or southern Europe instead of western Europe.

    Those conditions would not be tolerated here today (neither would they be tolerated in China).  But it is what launched the U.S. into its role as world leader.




    Your full of shit with your straw man arguments.

    This isn't about labor conditions. It's about forced labor and labor camps, prisons, where the individual doesn't have a choice in employment. Worse it is about reducing the birth rate of Uyghur and other minorities which is considered genocide by the UN.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/chinese-uyghur-policy-causes-unprecedented-fall-in-xinjiang-birthrates

    "Birthrates in Xinjiang fell by almost half in the two years after the Chinese government implemented policies to reduce the number of babies born to Uyghur and other Muslim minority families, new research has claimed.

    The figures show unprecedented declines which were more extreme than any global region at any time in the 71 years of UN fertility data collection, including during genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, according to the authors of the report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Aspi).

    The data adds to mounting evidence of coercive fertility policies in Xinjiang, including first-person accounts of forced sterilisation or birth control, and leaked policing data on the internment of women for violating family planning regulations."

    I know you'll keep carrying water for the PRC, while they continue with their massive human rights violations.

    edited May 12 watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,471member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
    Read more; be better informed, and if you can't provide a link to your any of your assertions, then quietly go away.

    China hasn't surpassed the U.S. in GDP, and isn't likely to in the most optimistic scenario, before the end of this decade, 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/new-chart-shows-china-gdp-could-overtake-us-sooner-as-covid-took-its-toll.html

    “This (divergence in growth) is consistent with our view that the pandemic has been a much larger blow to the US economy than China’s economy,” Rob Subbaraman of Nomura said in an email Friday. “We believe that on reasonable growth projections the size of China’s economy in USD terms will overtake the US in 2028.”

    If, in fact China does eventually surpass the U.S. GDP, it is worth noting that the U.S. is at less than 25% of the China's population.

    The recent trend in the West to reduce sourcing from China, will almost certainly reduce China's chance of overtaking the U.S. Much of the reduction, is due to China's Human Rights violations, and China's strangulation of freedom in Hong Kong.

    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/1e07d836/ces-pub-asiapacific-111120.pdf

    "Rarely has a national challenge been defined and dated so precisely by a competitor nation. To the extent that any great power does today, China under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule has a set of official goals and plans to make itself great again by 2049. Most of the foundational work is slated for completion by the halfway mark: 2035.2

    2035 thus represents a key milestone in PRC domestic politics. Measured by China’s core planning and development metronome—the Five-Year Plan—2035 is only three decision cycles away. Furthermore, “by 2035, China’s military leaders seek to complete military modernization.”3 It is also the year by which the State Council’s Development Research Centre projects that the United States may no longer be the global economic superpower and the point when China’s economy will likely have surpassed America’s in sheer size.4

    If official PRC projections are right, the global effects would be substantial— particularly if Beijing’s rise further dilutes Washington’s global economic and military influence. But if they are wrong—which an increasing array of demographic, economic, and diplomatic signals suggests is the case—the effects could be even more profound.

    There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years.5 If China displayed the demographics, financial profile, and real economy metrics that the United States did between 1890 and 1920, this would suggest Beijing’s narrative could in fact prove correct.

    But emerging reality is very different. China’s incipient demographic decline, tremendous environmental and resource stresses,slowing economic growth, and the rising external backlash against its revisionist aggression are in fact establishing conditions within which an appropriately tailored U.S. competitive strategy can leverage America’s enduring strength and underappreciated future growth potential. Done right, this can enable Washington to lead an effort that would benefit billions of people by protecting, renewing, and improving many aspects of the Asia-Pacific diplomatic, economic, and security architecture."

    Bottom line, China is today an expanding authoritarian power, is belligerent, and should be resisted by the West, and interestingly enough, the West is actually coming around to that fact. At the same time, China's population is aging and will be top heavy with Seniors in 2035, so these demographics might be the actual downfall of the PRC. 

    Sorry, just calling bull to the bull. 

    But you finally got one thing right:  
    "There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years."

    Except it's not an assumption -- and it is espoused by most western economists -- and they are saying China won't just lead Asia, but the world.  Right now it's a near certainty rather than an assumption.   And even the author of the "we hate China" smear campaigns admitted that that was the motivation for the smear campaign.

    For myself, I don't want to see that happen.  But I blame the U.S. for falling behind rather than China for succeeding.   It's how free market capitalism works.  The cream rises to the top till somebody comes up with something better.

    Your comparison to the U.S. from 1880 - 1920 is appropriate:   Working conditions were abominable by today's standards:   12 hours work days, 6 days a week in horrible, dangerous conditions.  Garment workers were literally locked into the factories where they worked like prisoners.   Miners lived in company housing and shopped at the company store -- where they often had to spend more than they made so they ended up owing money to the company they worked for.   Steel workers were literally shot down if they tried to strike and robber barons ruled the land -- including local, state and federal governments.   If the company could not manage a strike the robber barons called in state or federal militias to shut it down.    If the workers objected they were fired (no unemployment benefits either) and replaced with some new group of immigrants -- say from eastern or southern Europe instead of western Europe.

    Those conditions would not be tolerated here today (neither would they be tolerated in China).  But it is what launched the U.S. into its role as world leader.




    Your full of shit with your straw man arguments.

    This isn't about labor conditions. It's about forced labor and labor camps, prisons, where the individual doesn't have a choice in employment. Worse it is about reducing the birth rate of Uyghur and other minorities which is considered genocide by the UN.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/chinese-uyghur-policy-causes-unprecedented-fall-in-xinjiang-birthrates

    "Birthrates in Xinjiang fell by almost half in the two years after the Chinese government implemented policies to reduce the number of babies born to Uyghur and other Muslim minority families, new research has claimed.

    The figures show unprecedented declines which were more extreme than any global region at any time in the 71 years of UN fertility data collection, including during genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, according to the authors of the report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Aspi).

    The data adds to mounting evidence of coercive fertility policies in Xinjiang, including first-person accounts of forced sterilisation or birth control, and leaked policing data on the internment of women for violating family planning regulations."

    I know you'll keep carrying water for the PRC, while they continue with their massive human rights violations.


    Actually, it's about propaganda and smear campaigns.

    We know from the last 4 years how that works.   If you can't beat the competition then smear the competition.
  • Reply 16 of 27
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
    Read more; be better informed, and if you can't provide a link to your any of your assertions, then quietly go away.

    China hasn't surpassed the U.S. in GDP, and isn't likely to in the most optimistic scenario, before the end of this decade, 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/new-chart-shows-china-gdp-could-overtake-us-sooner-as-covid-took-its-toll.html

    “This (divergence in growth) is consistent with our view that the pandemic has been a much larger blow to the US economy than China’s economy,” Rob Subbaraman of Nomura said in an email Friday. “We believe that on reasonable growth projections the size of China’s economy in USD terms will overtake the US in 2028.”

    If, in fact China does eventually surpass the U.S. GDP, it is worth noting that the U.S. is at less than 25% of the China's population.

    The recent trend in the West to reduce sourcing from China, will almost certainly reduce China's chance of overtaking the U.S. Much of the reduction, is due to China's Human Rights violations, and China's strangulation of freedom in Hong Kong.

    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/1e07d836/ces-pub-asiapacific-111120.pdf

    "Rarely has a national challenge been defined and dated so precisely by a competitor nation. To the extent that any great power does today, China under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule has a set of official goals and plans to make itself great again by 2049. Most of the foundational work is slated for completion by the halfway mark: 2035.2

    2035 thus represents a key milestone in PRC domestic politics. Measured by China’s core planning and development metronome—the Five-Year Plan—2035 is only three decision cycles away. Furthermore, “by 2035, China’s military leaders seek to complete military modernization.”3 It is also the year by which the State Council’s Development Research Centre projects that the United States may no longer be the global economic superpower and the point when China’s economy will likely have surpassed America’s in sheer size.4

    If official PRC projections are right, the global effects would be substantial— particularly if Beijing’s rise further dilutes Washington’s global economic and military influence. But if they are wrong—which an increasing array of demographic, economic, and diplomatic signals suggests is the case—the effects could be even more profound.

    There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years.5 If China displayed the demographics, financial profile, and real economy metrics that the United States did between 1890 and 1920, this would suggest Beijing’s narrative could in fact prove correct.

    But emerging reality is very different. China’s incipient demographic decline, tremendous environmental and resource stresses,slowing economic growth, and the rising external backlash against its revisionist aggression are in fact establishing conditions within which an appropriately tailored U.S. competitive strategy can leverage America’s enduring strength and underappreciated future growth potential. Done right, this can enable Washington to lead an effort that would benefit billions of people by protecting, renewing, and improving many aspects of the Asia-Pacific diplomatic, economic, and security architecture."

    Bottom line, China is today an expanding authoritarian power, is belligerent, and should be resisted by the West, and interestingly enough, the West is actually coming around to that fact. At the same time, China's population is aging and will be top heavy with Seniors in 2035, so these demographics might be the actual downfall of the PRC. 

    Sorry, just calling bull to the bull. 

    But you finally got one thing right:  
    "There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years."

    Except it's not an assumption -- and it is espoused by most western economists -- and they are saying China won't just lead Asia, but the world.  Right now it's a near certainty rather than an assumption.   And even the author of the "we hate China" smear campaigns admitted that that was the motivation for the smear campaign.

    For myself, I don't want to see that happen.  But I blame the U.S. for falling behind rather than China for succeeding.   It's how free market capitalism works.  The cream rises to the top till somebody comes up with something better.

    Your comparison to the U.S. from 1880 - 1920 is appropriate:   Working conditions were abominable by today's standards:   12 hours work days, 6 days a week in horrible, dangerous conditions.  Garment workers were literally locked into the factories where they worked like prisoners.   Miners lived in company housing and shopped at the company store -- where they often had to spend more than they made so they ended up owing money to the company they worked for.   Steel workers were literally shot down if they tried to strike and robber barons ruled the land -- including local, state and federal governments.   If the company could not manage a strike the robber barons called in state or federal militias to shut it down.    If the workers objected they were fired (no unemployment benefits either) and replaced with some new group of immigrants -- say from eastern or southern Europe instead of western Europe.

    Those conditions would not be tolerated here today (neither would they be tolerated in China).  But it is what launched the U.S. into its role as world leader.




    Your full of shit with your straw man arguments.

    This isn't about labor conditions. It's about forced labor and labor camps, prisons, where the individual doesn't have a choice in employment. Worse it is about reducing the birth rate of Uyghur and other minorities which is considered genocide by the UN.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/chinese-uyghur-policy-causes-unprecedented-fall-in-xinjiang-birthrates

    "Birthrates in Xinjiang fell by almost half in the two years after the Chinese government implemented policies to reduce the number of babies born to Uyghur and other Muslim minority families, new research has claimed.

    The figures show unprecedented declines which were more extreme than any global region at any time in the 71 years of UN fertility data collection, including during genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, according to the authors of the report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Aspi).

    The data adds to mounting evidence of coercive fertility policies in Xinjiang, including first-person accounts of forced sterilisation or birth control, and leaked policing data on the internment of women for violating family planning regulations."

    I know you'll keep carrying water for the PRC, while they continue with their massive human rights violations.


    Actually, it's about propaganda and smear campaigns.

    We know from the last 4 years how that works.   If you can't beat the competition then smear the competition.
    So, you don't actually have any facts that dispute what I posted. 

    Same as it ever was.

    You seem unable to understand that you yourself are the one propagandizing for the PRC.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,471member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
    Read more; be better informed, and if you can't provide a link to your any of your assertions, then quietly go away.

    China hasn't surpassed the U.S. in GDP, and isn't likely to in the most optimistic scenario, before the end of this decade, 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/new-chart-shows-china-gdp-could-overtake-us-sooner-as-covid-took-its-toll.html

    “This (divergence in growth) is consistent with our view that the pandemic has been a much larger blow to the US economy than China’s economy,” Rob Subbaraman of Nomura said in an email Friday. “We believe that on reasonable growth projections the size of China’s economy in USD terms will overtake the US in 2028.”

    If, in fact China does eventually surpass the U.S. GDP, it is worth noting that the U.S. is at less than 25% of the China's population.

    The recent trend in the West to reduce sourcing from China, will almost certainly reduce China's chance of overtaking the U.S. Much of the reduction, is due to China's Human Rights violations, and China's strangulation of freedom in Hong Kong.

    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/1e07d836/ces-pub-asiapacific-111120.pdf

    "Rarely has a national challenge been defined and dated so precisely by a competitor nation. To the extent that any great power does today, China under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule has a set of official goals and plans to make itself great again by 2049. Most of the foundational work is slated for completion by the halfway mark: 2035.2

    2035 thus represents a key milestone in PRC domestic politics. Measured by China’s core planning and development metronome—the Five-Year Plan—2035 is only three decision cycles away. Furthermore, “by 2035, China’s military leaders seek to complete military modernization.”3 It is also the year by which the State Council’s Development Research Centre projects that the United States may no longer be the global economic superpower and the point when China’s economy will likely have surpassed America’s in sheer size.4

    If official PRC projections are right, the global effects would be substantial— particularly if Beijing’s rise further dilutes Washington’s global economic and military influence. But if they are wrong—which an increasing array of demographic, economic, and diplomatic signals suggests is the case—the effects could be even more profound.

    There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years.5 If China displayed the demographics, financial profile, and real economy metrics that the United States did between 1890 and 1920, this would suggest Beijing’s narrative could in fact prove correct.

    But emerging reality is very different. China’s incipient demographic decline, tremendous environmental and resource stresses,slowing economic growth, and the rising external backlash against its revisionist aggression are in fact establishing conditions within which an appropriately tailored U.S. competitive strategy can leverage America’s enduring strength and underappreciated future growth potential. Done right, this can enable Washington to lead an effort that would benefit billions of people by protecting, renewing, and improving many aspects of the Asia-Pacific diplomatic, economic, and security architecture."

    Bottom line, China is today an expanding authoritarian power, is belligerent, and should be resisted by the West, and interestingly enough, the West is actually coming around to that fact. At the same time, China's population is aging and will be top heavy with Seniors in 2035, so these demographics might be the actual downfall of the PRC. 

    Sorry, just calling bull to the bull. 

    But you finally got one thing right:  
    "There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years."

    Except it's not an assumption -- and it is espoused by most western economists -- and they are saying China won't just lead Asia, but the world.  Right now it's a near certainty rather than an assumption.   And even the author of the "we hate China" smear campaigns admitted that that was the motivation for the smear campaign.

    For myself, I don't want to see that happen.  But I blame the U.S. for falling behind rather than China for succeeding.   It's how free market capitalism works.  The cream rises to the top till somebody comes up with something better.

    Your comparison to the U.S. from 1880 - 1920 is appropriate:   Working conditions were abominable by today's standards:   12 hours work days, 6 days a week in horrible, dangerous conditions.  Garment workers were literally locked into the factories where they worked like prisoners.   Miners lived in company housing and shopped at the company store -- where they often had to spend more than they made so they ended up owing money to the company they worked for.   Steel workers were literally shot down if they tried to strike and robber barons ruled the land -- including local, state and federal governments.   If the company could not manage a strike the robber barons called in state or federal militias to shut it down.    If the workers objected they were fired (no unemployment benefits either) and replaced with some new group of immigrants -- say from eastern or southern Europe instead of western Europe.

    Those conditions would not be tolerated here today (neither would they be tolerated in China).  But it is what launched the U.S. into its role as world leader.




    Your full of shit with your straw man arguments.

    This isn't about labor conditions. It's about forced labor and labor camps, prisons, where the individual doesn't have a choice in employment. Worse it is about reducing the birth rate of Uyghur and other minorities which is considered genocide by the UN.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/chinese-uyghur-policy-causes-unprecedented-fall-in-xinjiang-birthrates

    "Birthrates in Xinjiang fell by almost half in the two years after the Chinese government implemented policies to reduce the number of babies born to Uyghur and other Muslim minority families, new research has claimed.

    The figures show unprecedented declines which were more extreme than any global region at any time in the 71 years of UN fertility data collection, including during genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, according to the authors of the report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Aspi).

    The data adds to mounting evidence of coercive fertility policies in Xinjiang, including first-person accounts of forced sterilisation or birth control, and leaked policing data on the internment of women for violating family planning regulations."

    I know you'll keep carrying water for the PRC, while they continue with their massive human rights violations.


    Actually, it's about propaganda and smear campaigns.

    We know from the last 4 years how that works.   If you can't beat the competition then smear the competition.
    So, you don't actually have any facts that dispute what I posted. 

    Same as it ever was.

    You seem unable to understand that you yourself are the one propagandizing for the PRC.

    Fact:  (as I said):
    Actually, it's about propaganda and smear campaigns.

    We know from the last 4 years how that works.   If you can't beat the competition then smear the competition.
  • Reply 18 of 27
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
    Read more; be better informed, and if you can't provide a link to your any of your assertions, then quietly go away.

    China hasn't surpassed the U.S. in GDP, and isn't likely to in the most optimistic scenario, before the end of this decade, 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/new-chart-shows-china-gdp-could-overtake-us-sooner-as-covid-took-its-toll.html

    “This (divergence in growth) is consistent with our view that the pandemic has been a much larger blow to the US economy than China’s economy,” Rob Subbaraman of Nomura said in an email Friday. “We believe that on reasonable growth projections the size of China’s economy in USD terms will overtake the US in 2028.”

    If, in fact China does eventually surpass the U.S. GDP, it is worth noting that the U.S. is at less than 25% of the China's population.

    The recent trend in the West to reduce sourcing from China, will almost certainly reduce China's chance of overtaking the U.S. Much of the reduction, is due to China's Human Rights violations, and China's strangulation of freedom in Hong Kong.

    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/1e07d836/ces-pub-asiapacific-111120.pdf

    "Rarely has a national challenge been defined and dated so precisely by a competitor nation. To the extent that any great power does today, China under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule has a set of official goals and plans to make itself great again by 2049. Most of the foundational work is slated for completion by the halfway mark: 2035.2

    2035 thus represents a key milestone in PRC domestic politics. Measured by China’s core planning and development metronome—the Five-Year Plan—2035 is only three decision cycles away. Furthermore, “by 2035, China’s military leaders seek to complete military modernization.”3 It is also the year by which the State Council’s Development Research Centre projects that the United States may no longer be the global economic superpower and the point when China’s economy will likely have surpassed America’s in sheer size.4

    If official PRC projections are right, the global effects would be substantial— particularly if Beijing’s rise further dilutes Washington’s global economic and military influence. But if they are wrong—which an increasing array of demographic, economic, and diplomatic signals suggests is the case—the effects could be even more profound.

    There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years.5 If China displayed the demographics, financial profile, and real economy metrics that the United States did between 1890 and 1920, this would suggest Beijing’s narrative could in fact prove correct.

    But emerging reality is very different. China’s incipient demographic decline, tremendous environmental and resource stresses,slowing economic growth, and the rising external backlash against its revisionist aggression are in fact establishing conditions within which an appropriately tailored U.S. competitive strategy can leverage America’s enduring strength and underappreciated future growth potential. Done right, this can enable Washington to lead an effort that would benefit billions of people by protecting, renewing, and improving many aspects of the Asia-Pacific diplomatic, economic, and security architecture."

    Bottom line, China is today an expanding authoritarian power, is belligerent, and should be resisted by the West, and interestingly enough, the West is actually coming around to that fact. At the same time, China's population is aging and will be top heavy with Seniors in 2035, so these demographics might be the actual downfall of the PRC. 

    Sorry, just calling bull to the bull. 

    But you finally got one thing right:  
    "There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years."

    Except it's not an assumption -- and it is espoused by most western economists -- and they are saying China won't just lead Asia, but the world.  Right now it's a near certainty rather than an assumption.   And even the author of the "we hate China" smear campaigns admitted that that was the motivation for the smear campaign.

    For myself, I don't want to see that happen.  But I blame the U.S. for falling behind rather than China for succeeding.   It's how free market capitalism works.  The cream rises to the top till somebody comes up with something better.

    Your comparison to the U.S. from 1880 - 1920 is appropriate:   Working conditions were abominable by today's standards:   12 hours work days, 6 days a week in horrible, dangerous conditions.  Garment workers were literally locked into the factories where they worked like prisoners.   Miners lived in company housing and shopped at the company store -- where they often had to spend more than they made so they ended up owing money to the company they worked for.   Steel workers were literally shot down if they tried to strike and robber barons ruled the land -- including local, state and federal governments.   If the company could not manage a strike the robber barons called in state or federal militias to shut it down.    If the workers objected they were fired (no unemployment benefits either) and replaced with some new group of immigrants -- say from eastern or southern Europe instead of western Europe.

    Those conditions would not be tolerated here today (neither would they be tolerated in China).  But it is what launched the U.S. into its role as world leader.




    Your full of shit with your straw man arguments.

    This isn't about labor conditions. It's about forced labor and labor camps, prisons, where the individual doesn't have a choice in employment. Worse it is about reducing the birth rate of Uyghur and other minorities which is considered genocide by the UN.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/chinese-uyghur-policy-causes-unprecedented-fall-in-xinjiang-birthrates

    "Birthrates in Xinjiang fell by almost half in the two years after the Chinese government implemented policies to reduce the number of babies born to Uyghur and other Muslim minority families, new research has claimed.

    The figures show unprecedented declines which were more extreme than any global region at any time in the 71 years of UN fertility data collection, including during genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, according to the authors of the report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Aspi).

    The data adds to mounting evidence of coercive fertility policies in Xinjiang, including first-person accounts of forced sterilisation or birth control, and leaked policing data on the internment of women for violating family planning regulations."

    I know you'll keep carrying water for the PRC, while they continue with their massive human rights violations.


    Actually, it's about propaganda and smear campaigns.

    We know from the last 4 years how that works.   If you can't beat the competition then smear the competition.
    So, you don't actually have any facts that dispute what I posted. 

    Same as it ever was.

    You seem unable to understand that you yourself are the one propagandizing for the PRC.

    Fact:  (as I said):
    Actually, it's about propaganda and smear campaigns.

    We know from the last 4 years how that works.   If you can't beat the competition then smear the competition.
    LOL!

    You're such a joke.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 27
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,471member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
    Read more; be better informed, and if you can't provide a link to your any of your assertions, then quietly go away.

    China hasn't surpassed the U.S. in GDP, and isn't likely to in the most optimistic scenario, before the end of this decade, 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/new-chart-shows-china-gdp-could-overtake-us-sooner-as-covid-took-its-toll.html

    “This (divergence in growth) is consistent with our view that the pandemic has been a much larger blow to the US economy than China’s economy,” Rob Subbaraman of Nomura said in an email Friday. “We believe that on reasonable growth projections the size of China’s economy in USD terms will overtake the US in 2028.”

    If, in fact China does eventually surpass the U.S. GDP, it is worth noting that the U.S. is at less than 25% of the China's population.

    The recent trend in the West to reduce sourcing from China, will almost certainly reduce China's chance of overtaking the U.S. Much of the reduction, is due to China's Human Rights violations, and China's strangulation of freedom in Hong Kong.

    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/1e07d836/ces-pub-asiapacific-111120.pdf

    "Rarely has a national challenge been defined and dated so precisely by a competitor nation. To the extent that any great power does today, China under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule has a set of official goals and plans to make itself great again by 2049. Most of the foundational work is slated for completion by the halfway mark: 2035.2

    2035 thus represents a key milestone in PRC domestic politics. Measured by China’s core planning and development metronome—the Five-Year Plan—2035 is only three decision cycles away. Furthermore, “by 2035, China’s military leaders seek to complete military modernization.”3 It is also the year by which the State Council’s Development Research Centre projects that the United States may no longer be the global economic superpower and the point when China’s economy will likely have surpassed America’s in sheer size.4

    If official PRC projections are right, the global effects would be substantial— particularly if Beijing’s rise further dilutes Washington’s global economic and military influence. But if they are wrong—which an increasing array of demographic, economic, and diplomatic signals suggests is the case—the effects could be even more profound.

    There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years.5 If China displayed the demographics, financial profile, and real economy metrics that the United States did between 1890 and 1920, this would suggest Beijing’s narrative could in fact prove correct.

    But emerging reality is very different. China’s incipient demographic decline, tremendous environmental and resource stresses,slowing economic growth, and the rising external backlash against its revisionist aggression are in fact establishing conditions within which an appropriately tailored U.S. competitive strategy can leverage America’s enduring strength and underappreciated future growth potential. Done right, this can enable Washington to lead an effort that would benefit billions of people by protecting, renewing, and improving many aspects of the Asia-Pacific diplomatic, economic, and security architecture."

    Bottom line, China is today an expanding authoritarian power, is belligerent, and should be resisted by the West, and interestingly enough, the West is actually coming around to that fact. At the same time, China's population is aging and will be top heavy with Seniors in 2035, so these demographics might be the actual downfall of the PRC. 

    Sorry, just calling bull to the bull. 

    But you finally got one thing right:  
    "There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years."

    Except it's not an assumption -- and it is espoused by most western economists -- and they are saying China won't just lead Asia, but the world.  Right now it's a near certainty rather than an assumption.   And even the author of the "we hate China" smear campaigns admitted that that was the motivation for the smear campaign.

    For myself, I don't want to see that happen.  But I blame the U.S. for falling behind rather than China for succeeding.   It's how free market capitalism works.  The cream rises to the top till somebody comes up with something better.

    Your comparison to the U.S. from 1880 - 1920 is appropriate:   Working conditions were abominable by today's standards:   12 hours work days, 6 days a week in horrible, dangerous conditions.  Garment workers were literally locked into the factories where they worked like prisoners.   Miners lived in company housing and shopped at the company store -- where they often had to spend more than they made so they ended up owing money to the company they worked for.   Steel workers were literally shot down if they tried to strike and robber barons ruled the land -- including local, state and federal governments.   If the company could not manage a strike the robber barons called in state or federal militias to shut it down.    If the workers objected they were fired (no unemployment benefits either) and replaced with some new group of immigrants -- say from eastern or southern Europe instead of western Europe.

    Those conditions would not be tolerated here today (neither would they be tolerated in China).  But it is what launched the U.S. into its role as world leader.




    Your full of shit with your straw man arguments.

    This isn't about labor conditions. It's about forced labor and labor camps, prisons, where the individual doesn't have a choice in employment. Worse it is about reducing the birth rate of Uyghur and other minorities which is considered genocide by the UN.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/chinese-uyghur-policy-causes-unprecedented-fall-in-xinjiang-birthrates

    "Birthrates in Xinjiang fell by almost half in the two years after the Chinese government implemented policies to reduce the number of babies born to Uyghur and other Muslim minority families, new research has claimed.

    The figures show unprecedented declines which were more extreme than any global region at any time in the 71 years of UN fertility data collection, including during genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, according to the authors of the report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Aspi).

    The data adds to mounting evidence of coercive fertility policies in Xinjiang, including first-person accounts of forced sterilisation or birth control, and leaked policing data on the internment of women for violating family planning regulations."

    I know you'll keep carrying water for the PRC, while they continue with their massive human rights violations.


    Actually, it's about propaganda and smear campaigns.

    We know from the last 4 years how that works.   If you can't beat the competition then smear the competition.
    So, you don't actually have any facts that dispute what I posted. 

    Same as it ever was.

    You seem unable to understand that you yourself are the one propagandizing for the PRC.

    Fact:  (as I said):
    Actually, it's about propaganda and smear campaigns.

    We know from the last 4 years how that works.   If you can't beat the competition then smear the competition.
    LOL!

    You're such a joke.

    LOL....   So, like Trump, when you have no argument and have nothing to stand on you smear the competition.
  • Reply 20 of 27
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,162member
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    "As Android sales in the high-end 5G phone market are sluggish, Qualcomm will be forced to compete for more orders in the low-end market to compensate for Apple's order loss."

    This doesn't make a lot of sense. 5G modems appeared on high end phones over 2 years ago and have become progressively more widespread since then. 'sluggish' is a wishy washy term without due context (industry wide, the chip shortage, COVID related, saturation...?). They are already available in the €250 price band and by 2023 they will be in the low end and probably have a huge new 5G IoT market to take advantage of too.

    The deal to supply Apple was never part of QC's wider strategy. It was simply a 'bonus' that had a finite period of application. On top of that QC will continue receiving payments from Apple for every 5G modem that Apple makes.

    In that context there is nothing required to 'compensate' for the 'loss' because QC probably never contemplated having Apple's business in the first place. Circumstances simply brought a deal to the table which they accepted. QC will simply continue its roadmap just as it was.

    Even today (let alone 2023) with 5G modems having been on-SoC for a while now, the competition is tied to the general chipset market and not so much 5G modems themselves.

    In that context, Samsung will definitely have something to say by the time 2023 comes around and Huawei certainly will, the second sanctions are lifted or they get their own manufacturing up to speed. Whichever comes first. Then of course there is Mediatek which I believe is the current smartphone chipset leader (although perhaps I'd have to confirm that to make sure) .


    There isn't a chance in hell of China getting leading edge fabs operational by 2025, let alone 2023, and given that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted, I'm not seeing Huawei making a comeback in flagship phones.

    Germany and Huawei;

    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-europe-huawei-5g-data-privacy-cybersecurity/

    Huawei's telecom looks to have been shut down, for all practical purposes, in Germany.

    Meanwhile, the EU investment agreement with China appears to have been derailed:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-05/europe-knits-together-strategies-to-hold-the-line-against-china

    "The European Union signaled it won’t ratify an investment agreement with China as long as its officials are sanctioned in a clash with Beijing over alleged human rights abuses, as the bloc set out strategies to counter state-funded Chinese takeovers.

    “The ratification process cannot be separated from the evolving dynamics of the wider EU-China relationship,” Valdis Dombrovskis, the bloc’s trade chief, told reporters on Wednesday, calling China’s retaliatory sanctions against officials including members of the European Parliament “unacceptable and regrettable.”

    Foreign State Aid
    • The EU Commission unveiled proposals to curb potentially unfair foreign state support to companies. “We will act assertively when necessary to keep our economies working well,” Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager told reporters on Wednesday. Vestager said earlier that the EU needs “intrusive” rules to prevent foreign state-funded firms -- such as those from China -- from undercutting EU rivals.

    Chip Production

    • The commission laid out plans to diversify supply chains and carry out regular sector reviews in order to tackle the bloc’s dependencies in key strategic areas, including semiconductors. So far Europe has been “too naive, too open” about outsourcing chipmaking to countries like Taiwan, China and South Korea, Industry Commissioner Thierry Breton said in an earlier interview.

    Driving a wedge into this thread to derail it?

    We have to wait and see on sanctions and China's road maps. 

    The EU-China deal has in no way been derailed. Ratification is being held off. That's it. Politics.

    EU Chip production. Nothing new to see here.

    The goals were set out years ago with the EU processor initiative. That was created to deal with theoretical situations like the ones Trump ended up making real.

    Chip manufacturing is a branch of those goals which from day one were to reduce technological dependencies outside the EU.

    The subject comes up for review periodically and, given the current situation, may be accelerated. China and the US are doing exactly the same.

    Most of the above doesn't really have much to do with the thread though does it? So better to stick to the topic. 

    Given that you seem to be postulating that Huawei is going to be great again, I disagree that my post is off topic; you opened it up.

    Politics, no. Human rights, yes. Quite a bit of difference in the real world.

    As for China catching up to the West by 2023, I reiterate, it isn't going to happen, more so since both the U.S. and the EU have significant legislation in process to re-home silicon production. 
    Both China and Huawei are acknowledged world leaders in 5G technology.   No viable predictions of that technology can ignore that.
    But, the mere mention of China and Huawei trigger you and your black and white, good vs evil, ideological thinking.
    ... That is demonstrated by your immediate shift from technology to human rights debates.

    You are hyper-reactive to any mention of China or Huawei.   Don't blame others for that.
    Is that even true at all, or anymore? It almost certainly isn't true today.

    https://www.crn.com/slide-shows/networking/gartner-s-top-10-global-5g-network-infrastructure-companies/6

    Ericsson comes out the leader in the link above, so now would be a good time to post a link showing that both Huawei, and China, are world leaders in 5G. Seems like you are just parroting Chinese disinformation.

    I'm seeing a state owned enterprise, Huawei, which grew its business through extremely low pricing, a gift of China's state support. Now, that's not working out so well, as Huawei's links to the PRC are limiting its markets in the West. Worse, China is acknowledged to be a Human Rights violator, but of course, you know that intuitively, yet your very lame denials continue.

    I'm guessing that Australia, and the EU, plus the U.S., have all been "triggered" by the very word "Huawei", when in fact all are coming to their senses about including Huawei in their critical infrastructure.

    This is on Xi Jinping, and his brand of authoritarianism that permeates the PRC.

    Sounds like it is you doing the parroting of anti-China propaganda where ideology supersedes reality.   Or maybe, like the "freedom & democracy" cry of the Iraq war, the ideology is simply a justification for a pre-defined agenda:   "China is displacing the U.S. as #1 economy so we need to stop them.  But, since we can't, we'll smear them".

    At best, that'll tactic will slow them down.
    Read more; be better informed, and if you can't provide a link to your any of your assertions, then quietly go away.

    China hasn't surpassed the U.S. in GDP, and isn't likely to in the most optimistic scenario, before the end of this decade, 

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/01/new-chart-shows-china-gdp-could-overtake-us-sooner-as-covid-took-its-toll.html

    “This (divergence in growth) is consistent with our view that the pandemic has been a much larger blow to the US economy than China’s economy,” Rob Subbaraman of Nomura said in an email Friday. “We believe that on reasonable growth projections the size of China’s economy in USD terms will overtake the US in 2028.”

    If, in fact China does eventually surpass the U.S. GDP, it is worth noting that the U.S. is at less than 25% of the China's population.

    The recent trend in the West to reduce sourcing from China, will almost certainly reduce China's chance of overtaking the U.S. Much of the reduction, is due to China's Human Rights violations, and China's strangulation of freedom in Hong Kong.

    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/1e07d836/ces-pub-asiapacific-111120.pdf

    "Rarely has a national challenge been defined and dated so precisely by a competitor nation. To the extent that any great power does today, China under Xi Jinping’s authoritarian rule has a set of official goals and plans to make itself great again by 2049. Most of the foundational work is slated for completion by the halfway mark: 2035.2

    2035 thus represents a key milestone in PRC domestic politics. Measured by China’s core planning and development metronome—the Five-Year Plan—2035 is only three decision cycles away. Furthermore, “by 2035, China’s military leaders seek to complete military modernization.”3 It is also the year by which the State Council’s Development Research Centre projects that the United States may no longer be the global economic superpower and the point when China’s economy will likely have surpassed America’s in sheer size.4

    If official PRC projections are right, the global effects would be substantial— particularly if Beijing’s rise further dilutes Washington’s global economic and military influence. But if they are wrong—which an increasing array of demographic, economic, and diplomatic signals suggests is the case—the effects could be even more profound.

    There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years.5 If China displayed the demographics, financial profile, and real economy metrics that the United States did between 1890 and 1920, this would suggest Beijing’s narrative could in fact prove correct.

    But emerging reality is very different. China’s incipient demographic decline, tremendous environmental and resource stresses,slowing economic growth, and the rising external backlash against its revisionist aggression are in fact establishing conditions within which an appropriately tailored U.S. competitive strategy can leverage America’s enduring strength and underappreciated future growth potential. Done right, this can enable Washington to lead an effort that would benefit billions of people by protecting, renewing, and improving many aspects of the Asia-Pacific diplomatic, economic, and security architecture."

    Bottom line, China is today an expanding authoritarian power, is belligerent, and should be resisted by the West, and interestingly enough, the West is actually coming around to that fact. At the same time, China's population is aging and will be top heavy with Seniors in 2035, so these demographics might be the actual downfall of the PRC. 

    Sorry, just calling bull to the bull. 

    But you finally got one thing right:  
    "There is a growing assumption—promoted heavily by Beijing since the 2008 global financial crisis—that China will inevitably capture the core role in Asian economic and security architecture that the United States has held for the past 75 years."

    Except it's not an assumption -- and it is espoused by most western economists -- and they are saying China won't just lead Asia, but the world.  Right now it's a near certainty rather than an assumption.   And even the author of the "we hate China" smear campaigns admitted that that was the motivation for the smear campaign.

    For myself, I don't want to see that happen.  But I blame the U.S. for falling behind rather than China for succeeding.   It's how free market capitalism works.  The cream rises to the top till somebody comes up with something better.

    Your comparison to the U.S. from 1880 - 1920 is appropriate:   Working conditions were abominable by today's standards:   12 hours work days, 6 days a week in horrible, dangerous conditions.  Garment workers were literally locked into the factories where they worked like prisoners.   Miners lived in company housing and shopped at the company store -- where they often had to spend more than they made so they ended up owing money to the company they worked for.   Steel workers were literally shot down if they tried to strike and robber barons ruled the land -- including local, state and federal governments.   If the company could not manage a strike the robber barons called in state or federal militias to shut it down.    If the workers objected they were fired (no unemployment benefits either) and replaced with some new group of immigrants -- say from eastern or southern Europe instead of western Europe.

    Those conditions would not be tolerated here today (neither would they be tolerated in China).  But it is what launched the U.S. into its role as world leader.




    Your full of shit with your straw man arguments.

    This isn't about labor conditions. It's about forced labor and labor camps, prisons, where the individual doesn't have a choice in employment. Worse it is about reducing the birth rate of Uyghur and other minorities which is considered genocide by the UN.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/chinese-uyghur-policy-causes-unprecedented-fall-in-xinjiang-birthrates

    "Birthrates in Xinjiang fell by almost half in the two years after the Chinese government implemented policies to reduce the number of babies born to Uyghur and other Muslim minority families, new research has claimed.

    The figures show unprecedented declines which were more extreme than any global region at any time in the 71 years of UN fertility data collection, including during genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, according to the authors of the report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Aspi).

    The data adds to mounting evidence of coercive fertility policies in Xinjiang, including first-person accounts of forced sterilisation or birth control, and leaked policing data on the internment of women for violating family planning regulations."

    I know you'll keep carrying water for the PRC, while they continue with their massive human rights violations.


    Actually, it's about propaganda and smear campaigns.

    We know from the last 4 years how that works.   If you can't beat the competition then smear the competition.
    So, you don't actually have any facts that dispute what I posted. 

    Same as it ever was.

    You seem unable to understand that you yourself are the one propagandizing for the PRC.

    Fact:  (as I said):
    Actually, it's about propaganda and smear campaigns.

    We know from the last 4 years how that works.   If you can't beat the competition then smear the competition.
    LOL!

    You're such a joke.

    LOL....   So, like Trump, when you have no argument and have nothing to stand on you smear the competition.
    Your argument is "the smear", but you haven't addressed the facts of Human Rights violations in China, that are well documented by multiple sources, from multiple countries.

    You can deny and ignore, as the PRC has, but it isn't working.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.