Apple's European iPhone sales climb, but not enough to beat Samsung, Xiaomi

Posted:
in iPhone edited August 4
New research figures show that Chinese smart phone manufacturer Xiaomi outsold Apple's iPhone in Europe in Q2 2021, and was beating Samsung by the end of the quarter.

Xiaomi Mi 11i smartphones
Xiaomi Mi 11i smartphones


The latest market research report from Counterpoint claims that Europe is seeing sales of smart phones generally recover from their coronavirus lows. Year on year figures for Q2 2021 were up 33%, but apart from the iPhone SE "bright spot" for Apple, Q2 2020 was the worst smartphone quarter for all vendors, in a decade.

As the market recovers, Counterpoint says that there have been changes in the top end with which firms are selling the most.

The ongoing decline of Huawei has seen OPPO, OnePlus, and realme, all gain sales. Most significantly, Xiaomi moved from third to second, overtaking Apple in terms of sales in Europe during the quarter.

"Xiaomi's news gets even better though," said Counterpoint associate director Jan Stryjak. " Samsung suffered significant supply issues in May and June due to Covid-19 related factory shutdowns in Vietnam, and this has started to impact sales."

European Smartphone Sales Q2 2021 (Source: Counterpoint)
European Smartphone Sales Q2 2021 (Source: Counterpoint)


"Samsung's sales in Europe declined by 20% in June 2021 compared to May 2021," he continued, "which opened the door for Xiaomi to become Europe's top-selling smartphone vendor by the end of the quarter."

Stryjak notes, however, that Samsung's problems "should be short-lived." He also notes that in Q2 2021, Apple was "midway between launches."

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    igorskyigorsky Posts: 576member
    Apple “beat” Xiaomi and Samsung a long time ago. 
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 2 of 38
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,728member
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 3 of 38
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,262member
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?

    Like PC's & washing machines, smart phones have become commodities -- with razor thin margins. 

    What sets Apple's phones (and stuff) apart is its ecosystem incorporating software, support, apps, integration, services, etc, etc etc...
    ...  We'll never know what Apple's margins really are.  To paraphrase an old commercial:  "Only her cost accountant knows for sure".
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    GeorgeBMacmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 5 of 38
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,262member
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    jony0
  • Reply 6 of 38
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    Yes!! This is duality !
  • Reply 7 of 38
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,426member
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    That last statement is false.

    Apple has an almost completely separate market form Android OS devices, so there is little crossover. You have even acknowledged that your preferences lie completely with Android OS over iOS. 

    So the question becomes, is there an expansion of Android OS sales in the EU and a reduction in sales of iPhones.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/639928/market-share-mobile-operating-systems-eu/

    It looks like Android OS sales peaked in 2020, and iPhone has 30% of sales and trending up.

    I'm not seeing how any of the ecosystems for Chinese phone brand's are superior to iOS, and Apple's ecosystem in general, and why would Apple desire to sell you and your ilk, a cheap iPhone when you and they have a preference for anything other than iOS?

    Seems like Apple is marketing to buyers that want iOS, not to die hard Android OS users.
    edited August 5 watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 8 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    edited August 5
  • Reply 9 of 38
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,426member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 10 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    edited August 5 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 11 of 38
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,426member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    You know that I am speaking of phones, but thanks for playing;

    https://www.lightreading.com/5g/huawei-once-5g-leader-cant-offer-5g-in-its-newest-phones/d/d-id/771203#.YQatdcIsDsY.twitter

    Huawei has even struggled in China, its home market. "One-time market leader Huawei saw its share decline to 10% in Q2 2021 from 32% in Q2 2020," wrote analyst Ethan Qi of Counterpoint Research on the firm's website. "Vivo and OPPO now lead the market with 23% and 21% shares, respectively, followed by Xiaomi and Apple. All leading OEMs benefited from Huawei's decline and grew their market shares."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-loses-cellular-gear-market-share-outside-china-11615118400



    https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/08/20/huawei-build-45nm-chip-hisilicon-engineers-walking-out/

    According to reports from DigiTimes (1,2), “The mounting US trade sanctions are driving HiSilicon to the brink and many engineers have left the Huawei IC design arm’s team in Taiwan.”This will not just affect the company’s operations, but may also hamper its plans for the future. Another report also revealed that Huawei is planning on building its own 45nm fabs for the severely outdated 45nm chips.





    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 38
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    You forgot the most fundamental use of smartphone: to communicate with others. How Huawei is going to overcome this hurdle? 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    You know that I am speaking of phones, but thanks for playing;

    https://www.lightreading.com/5g/huawei-once-5g-leader-cant-offer-5g-in-its-newest-phones/d/d-id/771203#.YQatdcIsDsY.twitter

    Huawei has even struggled in China, its home market. "One-time market leader Huawei saw its share decline to 10% in Q2 2021 from 32% in Q2 2020," wrote analyst Ethan Qi of Counterpoint Research on the firm's website. "Vivo and OPPO now lead the market with 23% and 21% shares, respectively, followed by Xiaomi and Apple. All leading OEMs benefited from Huawei's decline and grew their market shares."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-loses-cellular-gear-market-share-outside-china-11615118400



    https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/08/20/huawei-build-45nm-chip-hisilicon-engineers-walking-out/

    According to reports from DigiTimes (1,2), “The mounting US trade sanctions are driving HiSilicon to the brink and many engineers have left the Huawei IC design arm’s team in Taiwan.”This will not just affect the company’s operations, but may also hamper its plans for the future. Another report also revealed that Huawei is planning on building its own 45nm fabs for the severely outdated 45nm chips.





    How about looking at what the company has stated - recently - instead of what DigiTimes speculated on a year ago?

    https://www.verdict.co.uk/huawei-creating-jobs-everywhere-except-the-usa/

    The most recent fabrication nodes are of zero use to over 90% of the world's needs. In fact it is in nobody's interest to use them outside of very limited use cases. It wouldn't make economic sense.

    Take a peek at HiSilicon's product catalog and you'll see why they employ 7,000 people. 

    https://www.o.hisilicon.com/

    Kirin isn't everything at HiSilicon and Kirin isn't dead either. If you believe the rumours you might even see a Samsung fabbed new Kirin chip next year. 

    And this just fresh out of the HiSilicon gate. Already 100% Chinese. 

    https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/08/02/huawei-hiair-low-latency-image-transmission-tech/

    You didn't say you were talking about Huawei's phone business. You said Huawei.

    It doesn't matter, though because Huawei's phone business isn't dead either. It is being regeared but it won't be instant. However, it won't take years either. It is using MediaTek and QC chipsets (just as it always has!). The difference being that a few years ago they were using less and less processors from them and now they will use more until the re-gearing process is finished. 

    Honor was spun off. If you are a betting man, put a bet on Honor returning to the Huawei fold as soon as it reaches processor independence.

    In the meantime tablets, watches, fitness bands, earbuds, sound equipment, smartscreens, monitors, PCs, laptops etc are being brought to market. That's just CE.

    With China being the biggest user of processors, what do you think will happen once they can satisfy there own needs and take a pass on US options? What will happen then?

    Remember that both ASML and TSMC have lost billions in trade due to extraterritorial US 'sanctions'. They are not happy and are making their discontent known.

    The Chinese handset manufacturers 'punished' Qualcomm by ordering more chips from MediaTek which in turn took it to the number one position worldwide.

    MediaTek is now moving into the ultra premium band.

    Samsung is also moving up a gear. 
    spheric
  • Reply 14 of 38
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,426member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    You know that I am speaking of phones, but thanks for playing;

    https://www.lightreading.com/5g/huawei-once-5g-leader-cant-offer-5g-in-its-newest-phones/d/d-id/771203#.YQatdcIsDsY.twitter

    Huawei has even struggled in China, its home market. "One-time market leader Huawei saw its share decline to 10% in Q2 2021 from 32% in Q2 2020," wrote analyst Ethan Qi of Counterpoint Research on the firm's website. "Vivo and OPPO now lead the market with 23% and 21% shares, respectively, followed by Xiaomi and Apple. All leading OEMs benefited from Huawei's decline and grew their market shares."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-loses-cellular-gear-market-share-outside-china-11615118400



    https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/08/20/huawei-build-45nm-chip-hisilicon-engineers-walking-out/

    According to reports from DigiTimes (1,2), “The mounting US trade sanctions are driving HiSilicon to the brink and many engineers have left the Huawei IC design arm’s team in Taiwan.”This will not just affect the company’s operations, but may also hamper its plans for the future. Another report also revealed that Huawei is planning on building its own 45nm fabs for the severely outdated 45nm chips.





    How about looking at what the company has stated - recently - instead of what DigiTimes speculated on a year ago?

    https://www.verdict.co.uk/huawei-creating-jobs-everywhere-except-the-usa/

    The most recent fabrication nodes are of zero use to over 90% of the world's needs. In fact it is in nobody's interest to use them outside of very limited use cases. It wouldn't make economic sense.

    Take a peek at HiSilicon's product catalog and you'll see why they employ 7,000 people. 

    https://www.o.hisilicon.com/

    Kirin isn't everything at HiSilicon and Kirin isn't dead either. If you believe the rumours you might even see a Samsung fabbed new Kirin chip next year. 

    And this just fresh out of the HiSilicon gate. Already 100% Chinese. 

    https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/08/02/huawei-hiair-low-latency-image-transmission-tech/

    You didn't say you were talking about Huawei's phone business. You said Huawei.

    It doesn't matter, though because Huawei's phone business isn't dead either. It is being regeared but it won't be instant. However, it won't take years either. It is using MediaTek and QC chipsets (just as it always has!). The difference being that a few years ago they were using less and less processors from them and now they will use more until the re-gearing process is finished. 

    Honor was spun off. If you are a betting man, put a bet on Honor returning to the Huawei fold as soon as it reaches processor independence.

    In the meantime tablets, watches, fitness bands, earbuds, sound equipment, smartscreens, monitors, PCs, laptops etc are being brought to market. That's just CE.

    With China being the biggest user of processors, what do you think will happen once they can satisfy there own needs and take a pass on US options? What will happen then?

    Remember that both ASML and TSMC have lost billions in trade due to extraterritorial US 'sanctions'. They are not happy and are making their discontent known.

    The Chinese handset manufacturers 'punished' Qualcomm by ordering more chips from MediaTek which in turn took it to the number one position worldwide.

    MediaTek is now moving into the ultra premium band.

    Samsung is also moving up a gear. 

    ASML and TSMC haven't lost billions. They still have more demand than they can satisfy, and its all outside of China.

    ASML shouldn’t be singled out as the only semiconductor company to be restricted. If the US wants to cut off China, at the very least, ban American technology too.

    Finally, ASML finds itself in the eye of a geopolitical battle. It was just a matter of time, once the Trump administration started to put the squeeze on China. The US is hell-bent on stopping, or at the very least slowing down, the Chinese advance on the world stage. Everything was fine as long as China was manufacturing the easy stuff, but now that it starts posing a threat – economically, technologically and therefore ultimately militarily – to the American hegemony, the fight is on.

    According to the reports, initially by Nikkei Asian Review and more recently by Reuters, US pressure led the Dutch government to withhold the license required for ASML to ship an EUV scanner to a Chinese customer. This is almost certainly SMIC, China’s most advanced semiconductor company. At this point, the foundry has no need for EUV in manufacturing. But, the same way Intel, TSMC and Samsung had machines to play with years before they even considered moving EUV into production, SMIC obviously will require some time to learn the tricks of the trade.

    I wouldn’t be so sure, however, that it was just US pressure that put SMIC’s order on hold. The Dutch government presented its own China strategy right before ASML’s export license wasn’t renewed. Called ‘A new balance’, it marks a new way of weighing national interests. Basically, short-term commercial interests are no longer drowning out all the other ones. Eyes have been opened to China keenly taking advantage of the possibilities that open, Western economies offer, while not returning the favor at home. The Dutch government acknowledges this asymmetry is both an economic and a national security threat.

    The document specifically mentions semiconductors and lithography as powering technological revolutions, which China intends to leverage to move up in the world. Shattering the previously widely held assumption that China would never be able to catch up to the West, or if it did, it would be to our advantage too – the government no longer considers China’s ascension on the world stage necessarily a good thing. Just as technology can change our future, so can a more powerful China.

    So, indeed, if the US government has been pressuring the Dutch, it might not have had to press all that hard. It’s not likely that the whole strategy was written merely to appease US wishes, either. Though only the US pursues an aggressive course of action, most Western countries have adopted a more stern stance on China in recent years. The US did – even before the stable genius became president.

    There’s much to be said for the Netherlands and Europe rethinking their approach to China, but the US’ pursuit of global dominance isn’t our fight. With that in mind, it’s interesting to note that ASML is a very convenient target for the Trump administration. Curtailing the company will have next to no impact domestically, unlike when chip sales to ZTE were temporarily banned. So what about, say, Applied Materials? Will its sales be restricted as well? That company wants as much a piece of the action in booming China as ASML does. What about Intel? Surely its chips can be used to power advanced weaponry.

    ASML’s technology is of exceptional strategic importance, though. Cutting off the Chinese from EUV will leave them forever stuck at 7-ish nanometer process technology, preserving the country’s dependence on imports for the most advanced semiconductor technology. To cut it off completely, however, one would have to convince TSMC to stop supplying the mainland (the Taiwanese foundry recently shipped the first EUV-made chips to Huawei).

    Still, it doesn’t seem fair to single out ASML when loads of US tech companies are allowed to continue doing business there. So, unless the Dutch government itself feels it would be wise to cut off China from EUV or use it as leverage in dealings with China, it shouldn’t ban the export. The sad reality of it, of course, is that if the US would really flex its muscles on the issue, the Netherlands would most likely cave.



    Oh, and the Kirin 9000 from Samsung, rumored to be in production back in March, crickets...

    Get you story straight about Mediatek, which is also a Taiwanese company;

    Huawei's affiliated HiSilicon attempted to challenge MediaTek's leading position, only to fail in the wake of the US-China trade war. MediaTek has benefited from Huawei's woes, and Huawei, once the second largest customer of TSMC and the third largest semiconductor buyer in the world, has gone back to square one, and started making changes.

    edited August 5 watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    You know that I am speaking of phones, but thanks for playing;

    https://www.lightreading.com/5g/huawei-once-5g-leader-cant-offer-5g-in-its-newest-phones/d/d-id/771203#.YQatdcIsDsY.twitter

    Huawei has even struggled in China, its home market. "One-time market leader Huawei saw its share decline to 10% in Q2 2021 from 32% in Q2 2020," wrote analyst Ethan Qi of Counterpoint Research on the firm's website. "Vivo and OPPO now lead the market with 23% and 21% shares, respectively, followed by Xiaomi and Apple. All leading OEMs benefited from Huawei's decline and grew their market shares."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-loses-cellular-gear-market-share-outside-china-11615118400



    https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/08/20/huawei-build-45nm-chip-hisilicon-engineers-walking-out/

    According to reports from DigiTimes (1,2), “The mounting US trade sanctions are driving HiSilicon to the brink and many engineers have left the Huawei IC design arm’s team in Taiwan.”This will not just affect the company’s operations, but may also hamper its plans for the future. Another report also revealed that Huawei is planning on building its own 45nm fabs for the severely outdated 45nm chips.





    How about looking at what the company has stated - recently - instead of what DigiTimes speculated on a year ago?

    https://www.verdict.co.uk/huawei-creating-jobs-everywhere-except-the-usa/

    The most recent fabrication nodes are of zero use to over 90% of the world's needs. In fact it is in nobody's interest to use them outside of very limited use cases. It wouldn't make economic sense.

    Take a peek at HiSilicon's product catalog and you'll see why they employ 7,000 people. 

    https://www.o.hisilicon.com/

    Kirin isn't everything at HiSilicon and Kirin isn't dead either. If you believe the rumours you might even see a Samsung fabbed new Kirin chip next year. 

    And this just fresh out of the HiSilicon gate. Already 100% Chinese. 

    https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/08/02/huawei-hiair-low-latency-image-transmission-tech/

    You didn't say you were talking about Huawei's phone business. You said Huawei.

    It doesn't matter, though because Huawei's phone business isn't dead either. It is being regeared but it won't be instant. However, it won't take years either. It is using MediaTek and QC chipsets (just as it always has!). The difference being that a few years ago they were using less and less processors from them and now they will use more until the re-gearing process is finished. 

    Honor was spun off. If you are a betting man, put a bet on Honor returning to the Huawei fold as soon as it reaches processor independence.

    In the meantime tablets, watches, fitness bands, earbuds, sound equipment, smartscreens, monitors, PCs, laptops etc are being brought to market. That's just CE.

    With China being the biggest user of processors, what do you think will happen once they can satisfy there own needs and take a pass on US options? What will happen then?

    Remember that both ASML and TSMC have lost billions in trade due to extraterritorial US 'sanctions'. They are not happy and are making their discontent known.

    The Chinese handset manufacturers 'punished' Qualcomm by ordering more chips from MediaTek which in turn took it to the number one position worldwide.

    MediaTek is now moving into the ultra premium band.

    Samsung is also moving up a gear. 

    ASML and TSMC haven't lost billions. They still have more demand than they can satisfy, and its all outside of China.

    ASML shouldn’t be singled out as the only semiconductor company to be restricted. If the US wants to cut off China, at the very least, ban American technology too.

    Finally, ASML finds itself in the eye of a geopolitical battle. It was just a matter of time, once the Trump administration started to put the squeeze on China. The US is hell-bent on stopping, or at the very least slowing down, the Chinese advance on the world stage. Everything was fine as long as China was manufacturing the easy stuff, but now that it starts posing a threat – economically, technologically and therefore ultimately militarily – to the American hegemony, the fight is on.

    According to the reports, initially by Nikkei Asian Review and more recently by Reuters, US pressure led the Dutch government to withhold the license required for ASML to ship an EUV scanner to a Chinese customer. This is almost certainly SMIC, China’s most advanced semiconductor company. At this point, the foundry has no need for EUV in manufacturing. But, the same way Intel, TSMC and Samsung had machines to play with years before they even considered moving EUV into production, SMIC obviously will require some time to learn the tricks of the trade.

    I wouldn’t be so sure, however, that it was just US pressure that put SMIC’s order on hold. The Dutch government presented its own China strategy right before ASML’s export license wasn’t renewed. Called ‘A new balance’, it marks a new way of weighing national interests. Basically, short-term commercial interests are no longer drowning out all the other ones. Eyes have been opened to China keenly taking advantage of the possibilities that open, Western economies offer, while not returning the favor at home. The Dutch government acknowledges this asymmetry is both an economic and a national security threat.

    The document specifically mentions semiconductors and lithography as powering technological revolutions, which China intends to leverage to move up in the world. Shattering the previously widely held assumption that China would never be able to catch up to the West, or if it did, it would be to our advantage too – the government no longer considers China’s ascension on the world stage necessarily a good thing. Just as technology can change our future, so can a more powerful China.

    So, indeed, if the US government has been pressuring the Dutch, it might not have had to press all that hard. It’s not likely that the whole strategy was written merely to appease US wishes, either. Though only the US pursues an aggressive course of action, most Western countries have adopted a more stern stance on China in recent years. The US did – even before the stable genius became president.

    There’s much to be said for the Netherlands and Europe rethinking their approach to China, but the US’ pursuit of global dominance isn’t our fight. With that in mind, it’s interesting to note that ASML is a very convenient target for the Trump administration. Curtailing the company will have next to no impact domestically, unlike when chip sales to ZTE were temporarily banned. So what about, say, Applied Materials? Will its sales be restricted as well? That company wants as much a piece of the action in booming China as ASML does. What about Intel? Surely its chips can be used to power advanced weaponry.

    ASML’s technology is of exceptional strategic importance, though. Cutting off the Chinese from EUV will leave them forever stuck at 7-ish nanometer process technology, preserving the country’s dependence on imports for the most advanced semiconductor technology. To cut it off completely, however, one would have to convince TSMC to stop supplying the mainland (the Taiwanese foundry recently shipped the first EUV-made chips to Huawei).

    Still, it doesn’t seem fair to single out ASML when loads of US tech companies are allowed to continue doing business there. So, unless the Dutch government itself feels it would be wise to cut off China from EUV or use it as leverage in dealings with China, it shouldn’t ban the export. The sad reality of it, of course, is that if the US would really flex its muscles on the issue, the Netherlands would most likely cave.



    Oh, and the Kirin 9000 from Samsung, rumored to be in production back in March, crickets...

    Get you story straight about Mediatek, which is also a Taiwanese company;

    Huawei's affiliated HiSilicon attempted to challenge MediaTek's leading position, only to fail in the wake of the US-China trade war. MediaTek has benefited from Huawei's woes, and Huawei, once the second largest customer of TSMC and the third largest semiconductor buyer in the world, has gone back to square one, and started making changes.

    Demand for processors right now is outstripping supply pretty much across the board. That isn't the point. ASML and TSMC want to do business with Chinese companies and both CEOs have come out and said so. And very directly. The ASML CEO made it crystal clear that the US approach would not work. 

    TSMC now has problems recruiting tech staff as China pumps up its efforts for semiconductor self sufficiency. TSMC is being subjected to an extraterritorial double whammy. They have lost billions in not being able to trade with Huawei and now have the absolute definite realisation of Huawei becoming a direct competitor down the line. It's now not a case of 'if' but 'when'. And through no fault of their own.

    The Dutch government had no autonomous role in impeding the SMIC deal. It had been signed off by ASML without government intervention until the US stepped up pressure. In fact, it seems the machinery will be delivered anyway in the not too distant future. 

    The world (perhaps excepting the US) knows full well that China's ultimate goal is the post silicon semiconductor age and there is nothing that can be done to stop that. 

    The Dutch know full well that business with China is not 'short term gain'. It is absolutely necessary because if the Chinese stop doing business with ASML permanently, it won't be a pretty sight. 

    As for Samsung and Kirin, there may well be things we aren't aware of yet:

    https://www.hardwaretimes.com/chinese-semiconductor-firm-claims-its-etching-equipment-is-already-use-at-samsung-tsmc-5nm-fabs/



    edited August 6 GeorgeBMacspheric
  • Reply 16 of 38
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,426member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    You know that I am speaking of phones, but thanks for playing;

    https://www.lightreading.com/5g/huawei-once-5g-leader-cant-offer-5g-in-its-newest-phones/d/d-id/771203#.YQatdcIsDsY.twitter

    Huawei has even struggled in China, its home market. "One-time market leader Huawei saw its share decline to 10% in Q2 2021 from 32% in Q2 2020," wrote analyst Ethan Qi of Counterpoint Research on the firm's website. "Vivo and OPPO now lead the market with 23% and 21% shares, respectively, followed by Xiaomi and Apple. All leading OEMs benefited from Huawei's decline and grew their market shares."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-loses-cellular-gear-market-share-outside-china-11615118400



    https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/08/20/huawei-build-45nm-chip-hisilicon-engineers-walking-out/

    According to reports from DigiTimes (1,2), “The mounting US trade sanctions are driving HiSilicon to the brink and many engineers have left the Huawei IC design arm’s team in Taiwan.”This will not just affect the company’s operations, but may also hamper its plans for the future. Another report also revealed that Huawei is planning on building its own 45nm fabs for the severely outdated 45nm chips.





    How about looking at what the company has stated - recently - instead of what DigiTimes speculated on a year ago?

    https://www.verdict.co.uk/huawei-creating-jobs-everywhere-except-the-usa/

    The most recent fabrication nodes are of zero use to over 90% of the world's needs. In fact it is in nobody's interest to use them outside of very limited use cases. It wouldn't make economic sense.

    Take a peek at HiSilicon's product catalog and you'll see why they employ 7,000 people. 

    https://www.o.hisilicon.com/

    Kirin isn't everything at HiSilicon and Kirin isn't dead either. If you believe the rumours you might even see a Samsung fabbed new Kirin chip next year. 

    And this just fresh out of the HiSilicon gate. Already 100% Chinese. 

    https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/08/02/huawei-hiair-low-latency-image-transmission-tech/

    You didn't say you were talking about Huawei's phone business. You said Huawei.

    It doesn't matter, though because Huawei's phone business isn't dead either. It is being regeared but it won't be instant. However, it won't take years either. It is using MediaTek and QC chipsets (just as it always has!). The difference being that a few years ago they were using less and less processors from them and now they will use more until the re-gearing process is finished. 

    Honor was spun off. If you are a betting man, put a bet on Honor returning to the Huawei fold as soon as it reaches processor independence.

    In the meantime tablets, watches, fitness bands, earbuds, sound equipment, smartscreens, monitors, PCs, laptops etc are being brought to market. That's just CE.

    With China being the biggest user of processors, what do you think will happen once they can satisfy there own needs and take a pass on US options? What will happen then?

    Remember that both ASML and TSMC have lost billions in trade due to extraterritorial US 'sanctions'. They are not happy and are making their discontent known.

    The Chinese handset manufacturers 'punished' Qualcomm by ordering more chips from MediaTek which in turn took it to the number one position worldwide.

    MediaTek is now moving into the ultra premium band.

    Samsung is also moving up a gear. 

    ASML and TSMC haven't lost billions. They still have more demand than they can satisfy, and its all outside of China.

    ASML shouldn’t be singled out as the only semiconductor company to be restricted. If the US wants to cut off China, at the very least, ban American technology too.

    Finally, ASML finds itself in the eye of a geopolitical battle. It was just a matter of time, once the Trump administration started to put the squeeze on China. The US is hell-bent on stopping, or at the very least slowing down, the Chinese advance on the world stage. Everything was fine as long as China was manufacturing the easy stuff, but now that it starts posing a threat – economically, technologically and therefore ultimately militarily – to the American hegemony, the fight is on.

    According to the reports, initially by Nikkei Asian Review and more recently by Reuters, US pressure led the Dutch government to withhold the license required for ASML to ship an EUV scanner to a Chinese customer. This is almost certainly SMIC, China’s most advanced semiconductor company. At this point, the foundry has no need for EUV in manufacturing. But, the same way Intel, TSMC and Samsung had machines to play with years before they even considered moving EUV into production, SMIC obviously will require some time to learn the tricks of the trade.

    I wouldn’t be so sure, however, that it was just US pressure that put SMIC’s order on hold. The Dutch government presented its own China strategy right before ASML’s export license wasn’t renewed. Called ‘A new balance’, it marks a new way of weighing national interests. Basically, short-term commercial interests are no longer drowning out all the other ones. Eyes have been opened to China keenly taking advantage of the possibilities that open, Western economies offer, while not returning the favor at home. The Dutch government acknowledges this asymmetry is both an economic and a national security threat.

    The document specifically mentions semiconductors and lithography as powering technological revolutions, which China intends to leverage to move up in the world. Shattering the previously widely held assumption that China would never be able to catch up to the West, or if it did, it would be to our advantage too – the government no longer considers China’s ascension on the world stage necessarily a good thing. Just as technology can change our future, so can a more powerful China.

    So, indeed, if the US government has been pressuring the Dutch, it might not have had to press all that hard. It’s not likely that the whole strategy was written merely to appease US wishes, either. Though only the US pursues an aggressive course of action, most Western countries have adopted a more stern stance on China in recent years. The US did – even before the stable genius became president.

    There’s much to be said for the Netherlands and Europe rethinking their approach to China, but the US’ pursuit of global dominance isn’t our fight. With that in mind, it’s interesting to note that ASML is a very convenient target for the Trump administration. Curtailing the company will have next to no impact domestically, unlike when chip sales to ZTE were temporarily banned. So what about, say, Applied Materials? Will its sales be restricted as well? That company wants as much a piece of the action in booming China as ASML does. What about Intel? Surely its chips can be used to power advanced weaponry.

    ASML’s technology is of exceptional strategic importance, though. Cutting off the Chinese from EUV will leave them forever stuck at 7-ish nanometer process technology, preserving the country’s dependence on imports for the most advanced semiconductor technology. To cut it off completely, however, one would have to convince TSMC to stop supplying the mainland (the Taiwanese foundry recently shipped the first EUV-made chips to Huawei).

    Still, it doesn’t seem fair to single out ASML when loads of US tech companies are allowed to continue doing business there. So, unless the Dutch government itself feels it would be wise to cut off China from EUV or use it as leverage in dealings with China, it shouldn’t ban the export. The sad reality of it, of course, is that if the US would really flex its muscles on the issue, the Netherlands would most likely cave.



    Oh, and the Kirin 9000 from Samsung, rumored to be in production back in March, crickets...

    Get you story straight about Mediatek, which is also a Taiwanese company;

    Huawei's affiliated HiSilicon attempted to challenge MediaTek's leading position, only to fail in the wake of the US-China trade war. MediaTek has benefited from Huawei's woes, and Huawei, once the second largest customer of TSMC and the third largest semiconductor buyer in the world, has gone back to square one, and started making changes.

    Demand for processors right now is outstripping supply pretty much across the board. That isn't the point. ASML and TSMC want to do business with Chinese companies and both CEOs have come out and said so. And very directly. The ASML CEO made it crystal clear that the US approach would not work. 

    TSMC now has problems recruiting tech staff as China pumps up its efforts for semiconductor self sufficiency. TSMC is being subjected to an extraterritorial double whammy. They have lost billions in not being able to trade with Huawei and now have the absolute definite realisation of Huawei becoming a direct competitor down the line. It's now not a case of 'if' but 'when'. And through no fault of their own.

    The Dutch government had no autonomous role in impeding the SMIC deal. It had been signed off by ASML without government intervention until the US stepped up pressure. In fact, it seems the machinery will be delivered anyway in the not too distant future. 

    The world (perhaps excepting the US) knows full well that China's ultimate goal is the post silicon semiconductor age and there is nothing that can be done to stop that. 

    The Dutch know full well that business with China is not 'short term gain'. It is absolutely necessary because if the Chinese stop doing business with ASML permanently, it won't be a pretty sight. 

    As for Samsung and Kirin, there may well be things we aren't aware of yet:

    https://www.hardwaretimes.com/chinese-semiconductor-firm-claims-its-etching-equipment-is-already-use-at-samsung-tsmc-5nm-fabs/



    My link disagrees with your post, and your link doesn't actually make sense. If China has etching technology to 5nm, why would they not use it for their own production at SMIC? 

    Perhaps it is a temporal issue with ASML equipment bans, given that Denmark changed its policies late in the process. Countries around the world are tiring of the PRC's bullying and mercantilism. That is a fact.

    I really don't care much what China comes up with internally, but given their militarism, especially against Taiwan, I'm happy to see advanced Western technology barred from sale to the PRC, and that's a trend that's accelerating.

    GeorgeBMac accused me of being an "anti Communist"; do you agree with him? Seems odd on his part, living in the U.S.

    I see myself as an anti-authoritarian, and the covers the PRC, as well as many other countries.


    an example of the PRC's economic bullying tactics...

    https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/china-ban-taiwan-pineapples-backfires-210000757.html

    China’s surprise ban on pineapple imports from Taiwan five months ago was widely viewed as an attempt to undermine President Tsai Ing-wen’s standing with a political constituency. Trade data show the move has produced anything but the desired effect.

    First-half numbers collected by Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture show growers of the fruit on the island have fared better since China blocked imports starting March 1, as sympathetic Japanese shoppers stepped in to provide support. Shipments to Japan surged more than eightfold to 16,556 tons in the four months through June from a year ago. A domestic campaign to drum up demand also helped.

    The helping hand from Japanese importers has come as a pleasant surprise for Taiwan’s rattled farmers who were bracing for a plunge in prices following the move by China, which termed it as a normal precaution to protect biosecurity. The spiky fruit is among a long list of products from Australian wine to coal and lobster China has targeted for sanctions to help gain leverage in trade disputes.

    “The bleeding was stopped before it even began,” said Chen Li-i, an official at the Council of Agriculture in Taipei.

    Japan has now replaced China as the major overseas destination for Taiwan’s pineapples. While it’s unclear how long the ban will last -- the shift may well reverse once the restrictions are lifted -- the humble tropical fruit has become an unlikely symbol of defiance in the region’s geopolitical intrigues. Amid all the sabre-rattling by Beijing, Japan and the island democracy have expressed a broad desire to forge closer ties. Leaders in Tokyo see their own security directly linked to that of Taiwan, which China asserts is its territory.

    Pineapples are an important source of income for farmers in central and southern Taiwan. Around 11% of the tropical fruit harvested in Taiwan are sold overseas. Until the ban, they were almost entirely shipped to China.


    edited August 6
  • Reply 17 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    You know that I am speaking of phones, but thanks for playing;

    https://www.lightreading.com/5g/huawei-once-5g-leader-cant-offer-5g-in-its-newest-phones/d/d-id/771203#.YQatdcIsDsY.twitter

    Huawei has even struggled in China, its home market. "One-time market leader Huawei saw its share decline to 10% in Q2 2021 from 32% in Q2 2020," wrote analyst Ethan Qi of Counterpoint Research on the firm's website. "Vivo and OPPO now lead the market with 23% and 21% shares, respectively, followed by Xiaomi and Apple. All leading OEMs benefited from Huawei's decline and grew their market shares."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-loses-cellular-gear-market-share-outside-china-11615118400



    https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/08/20/huawei-build-45nm-chip-hisilicon-engineers-walking-out/

    According to reports from DigiTimes (1,2), “The mounting US trade sanctions are driving HiSilicon to the brink and many engineers have left the Huawei IC design arm’s team in Taiwan.”This will not just affect the company’s operations, but may also hamper its plans for the future. Another report also revealed that Huawei is planning on building its own 45nm fabs for the severely outdated 45nm chips.





    How about looking at what the company has stated - recently - instead of what DigiTimes speculated on a year ago?

    https://www.verdict.co.uk/huawei-creating-jobs-everywhere-except-the-usa/

    The most recent fabrication nodes are of zero use to over 90% of the world's needs. In fact it is in nobody's interest to use them outside of very limited use cases. It wouldn't make economic sense.

    Take a peek at HiSilicon's product catalog and you'll see why they employ 7,000 people. 

    https://www.o.hisilicon.com/

    Kirin isn't everything at HiSilicon and Kirin isn't dead either. If you believe the rumours you might even see a Samsung fabbed new Kirin chip next year. 

    And this just fresh out of the HiSilicon gate. Already 100% Chinese. 

    https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/08/02/huawei-hiair-low-latency-image-transmission-tech/

    You didn't say you were talking about Huawei's phone business. You said Huawei.

    It doesn't matter, though because Huawei's phone business isn't dead either. It is being regeared but it won't be instant. However, it won't take years either. It is using MediaTek and QC chipsets (just as it always has!). The difference being that a few years ago they were using less and less processors from them and now they will use more until the re-gearing process is finished. 

    Honor was spun off. If you are a betting man, put a bet on Honor returning to the Huawei fold as soon as it reaches processor independence.

    In the meantime tablets, watches, fitness bands, earbuds, sound equipment, smartscreens, monitors, PCs, laptops etc are being brought to market. That's just CE.

    With China being the biggest user of processors, what do you think will happen once they can satisfy there own needs and take a pass on US options? What will happen then?

    Remember that both ASML and TSMC have lost billions in trade due to extraterritorial US 'sanctions'. They are not happy and are making their discontent known.

    The Chinese handset manufacturers 'punished' Qualcomm by ordering more chips from MediaTek which in turn took it to the number one position worldwide.

    MediaTek is now moving into the ultra premium band.

    Samsung is also moving up a gear. 

    ASML and TSMC haven't lost billions. They still have more demand than they can satisfy, and its all outside of China.

    ASML shouldn’t be singled out as the only semiconductor company to be restricted. If the US wants to cut off China, at the very least, ban American technology too.

    Finally, ASML finds itself in the eye of a geopolitical battle. It was just a matter of time, once the Trump administration started to put the squeeze on China. The US is hell-bent on stopping, or at the very least slowing down, the Chinese advance on the world stage. Everything was fine as long as China was manufacturing the easy stuff, but now that it starts posing a threat – economically, technologically and therefore ultimately militarily – to the American hegemony, the fight is on.

    According to the reports, initially by Nikkei Asian Review and more recently by Reuters, US pressure led the Dutch government to withhold the license required for ASML to ship an EUV scanner to a Chinese customer. This is almost certainly SMIC, China’s most advanced semiconductor company. At this point, the foundry has no need for EUV in manufacturing. But, the same way Intel, TSMC and Samsung had machines to play with years before they even considered moving EUV into production, SMIC obviously will require some time to learn the tricks of the trade.

    I wouldn’t be so sure, however, that it was just US pressure that put SMIC’s order on hold. The Dutch government presented its own China strategy right before ASML’s export license wasn’t renewed. Called ‘A new balance’, it marks a new way of weighing national interests. Basically, short-term commercial interests are no longer drowning out all the other ones. Eyes have been opened to China keenly taking advantage of the possibilities that open, Western economies offer, while not returning the favor at home. The Dutch government acknowledges this asymmetry is both an economic and a national security threat.

    The document specifically mentions semiconductors and lithography as powering technological revolutions, which China intends to leverage to move up in the world. Shattering the previously widely held assumption that China would never be able to catch up to the West, or if it did, it would be to our advantage too – the government no longer considers China’s ascension on the world stage necessarily a good thing. Just as technology can change our future, so can a more powerful China.

    So, indeed, if the US government has been pressuring the Dutch, it might not have had to press all that hard. It’s not likely that the whole strategy was written merely to appease US wishes, either. Though only the US pursues an aggressive course of action, most Western countries have adopted a more stern stance on China in recent years. The US did – even before the stable genius became president.

    There’s much to be said for the Netherlands and Europe rethinking their approach to China, but the US’ pursuit of global dominance isn’t our fight. With that in mind, it’s interesting to note that ASML is a very convenient target for the Trump administration. Curtailing the company will have next to no impact domestically, unlike when chip sales to ZTE were temporarily banned. So what about, say, Applied Materials? Will its sales be restricted as well? That company wants as much a piece of the action in booming China as ASML does. What about Intel? Surely its chips can be used to power advanced weaponry.

    ASML’s technology is of exceptional strategic importance, though. Cutting off the Chinese from EUV will leave them forever stuck at 7-ish nanometer process technology, preserving the country’s dependence on imports for the most advanced semiconductor technology. To cut it off completely, however, one would have to convince TSMC to stop supplying the mainland (the Taiwanese foundry recently shipped the first EUV-made chips to Huawei).

    Still, it doesn’t seem fair to single out ASML when loads of US tech companies are allowed to continue doing business there. So, unless the Dutch government itself feels it would be wise to cut off China from EUV or use it as leverage in dealings with China, it shouldn’t ban the export. The sad reality of it, of course, is that if the US would really flex its muscles on the issue, the Netherlands would most likely cave.



    Oh, and the Kirin 9000 from Samsung, rumored to be in production back in March, crickets...

    Get you story straight about Mediatek, which is also a Taiwanese company;

    Huawei's affiliated HiSilicon attempted to challenge MediaTek's leading position, only to fail in the wake of the US-China trade war. MediaTek has benefited from Huawei's woes, and Huawei, once the second largest customer of TSMC and the third largest semiconductor buyer in the world, has gone back to square one, and started making changes.

    Demand for processors right now is outstripping supply pretty much across the board. That isn't the point. ASML and TSMC want to do business with Chinese companies and both CEOs have come out and said so. And very directly. The ASML CEO made it crystal clear that the US approach would not work. 

    TSMC now has problems recruiting tech staff as China pumps up its efforts for semiconductor self sufficiency. TSMC is being subjected to an extraterritorial double whammy. They have lost billions in not being able to trade with Huawei and now have the absolute definite realisation of Huawei becoming a direct competitor down the line. It's now not a case of 'if' but 'when'. And through no fault of their own.

    The Dutch government had no autonomous role in impeding the SMIC deal. It had been signed off by ASML without government intervention until the US stepped up pressure. In fact, it seems the machinery will be delivered anyway in the not too distant future. 

    The world (perhaps excepting the US) knows full well that China's ultimate goal is the post silicon semiconductor age and there is nothing that can be done to stop that. 

    The Dutch know full well that business with China is not 'short term gain'. It is absolutely necessary because if the Chinese stop doing business with ASML permanently, it won't be a pretty sight. 

    As for Samsung and Kirin, there may well be things we aren't aware of yet:

    https://www.hardwaretimes.com/chinese-semiconductor-firm-claims-its-etching-equipment-is-already-use-at-samsung-tsmc-5nm-fabs/



    My link disagrees with your post, and your link doesn't actually make sense. If China has etching technology to 5nm, why would they not use it for their own production at SMIC? 

    Perhaps it is a temporal issue with ASML equipment bans, given that Denmark changed its policies late in the process. Countries around the world are tiring of the PRC's bullying and mercantilism. That is a fact.

    I really don't care much what China comes up with internally, but given their militarism, especially against Taiwan, I'm happy to see advanced Western technology barred from sale to the PRC, and that's a trend that's accelerating.

    GeorgeBMac accused me of being an "anti Communist"; do you agree with him? Seems odd on his part, living in the U.S.

    I see myself as an anti-authoritarian, and the covers the PRC, as well as many other countries.


    an example of the PRC's economic bullying tactics...

    https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/china-ban-taiwan-pineapples-backfires-210000757.html

    China’s surprise ban on pineapple imports from Taiwan five months ago was widely viewed as an attempt to undermine President Tsai Ing-wen’s standing with a political constituency. Trade data show the move has produced anything but the desired effect.

    First-half numbers collected by Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture show growers of the fruit on the island have fared better since China blocked imports starting March 1, as sympathetic Japanese shoppers stepped in to provide support. Shipments to Japan surged more than eightfold to 16,556 tons in the four months through June from a year ago. A domestic campaign to drum up demand also helped.

    The helping hand from Japanese importers has come as a pleasant surprise for Taiwan’s rattled farmers who were bracing for a plunge in prices following the move by China, which termed it as a normal precaution to protect biosecurity. The spiky fruit is among a long list of products from Australian wine to coal and lobster China has targeted for sanctions to help gain leverage in trade disputes.

    “The bleeding was stopped before it even began,” said Chen Li-i, an official at the Council of Agriculture in Taipei.

    Japan has now replaced China as the major overseas destination for Taiwan’s pineapples. While it’s unclear how long the ban will last -- the shift may well reverse once the restrictions are lifted -- the humble tropical fruit has become an unlikely symbol of defiance in the region’s geopolitical intrigues. Amid all the sabre-rattling by Beijing, Japan and the island democracy have expressed a broad desire to forge closer ties. Leaders in Tokyo see their own security directly linked to that of Taiwan, which China asserts is its territory.

    Pineapples are an important source of income for farmers in central and southern Taiwan. Around 11% of the tropical fruit harvested in Taiwan are sold overseas. Until the ban, they were almost entirely shipped to China.


    The etching process is simply one of many steps in processor fabrication. The point was that this technology from AMEC does not use US IP and is already being used for volume production in tier 1 settings. That is the trend that will be followed.

    There are currently plans for 30 new fabs in China (more than any other country). 13 of those 30 are destined for processor development. The others are destined for development of the remaining semiconductor branches. These are what we know about. I'm sure there are other advances in technology that are brewing and specifically in the field of lithography that are currently under wraps. 

    By reading between the lines on various comments from executives at Huawei and HiSilicon, three years is the time frame they seem to be working on to be entirely self sufficient. 

    In fact, the supply of one specific area within the 5G handset market that currently prevents Huawei from shipping 5G in its new phones will be resolved next year by home-grown technology. You can guess which country is going to lose out (again!) in that area and see its entire supply chain negatively impacted. 

    Of course no one knows for sure how long it will take Chinese companies to self sufficiently get below 5nm but it will be long before most people think. 

    I don't know what you 'are' or what you 'aren't' but you are blinded by bias when it comes to your stance on China. That impacts your credibility. 
    edited August 6 spheric
  • Reply 18 of 38
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,426member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    You know that I am speaking of phones, but thanks for playing;

    https://www.lightreading.com/5g/huawei-once-5g-leader-cant-offer-5g-in-its-newest-phones/d/d-id/771203#.YQatdcIsDsY.twitter

    Huawei has even struggled in China, its home market. "One-time market leader Huawei saw its share decline to 10% in Q2 2021 from 32% in Q2 2020," wrote analyst Ethan Qi of Counterpoint Research on the firm's website. "Vivo and OPPO now lead the market with 23% and 21% shares, respectively, followed by Xiaomi and Apple. All leading OEMs benefited from Huawei's decline and grew their market shares."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-loses-cellular-gear-market-share-outside-china-11615118400



    https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/08/20/huawei-build-45nm-chip-hisilicon-engineers-walking-out/

    According to reports from DigiTimes (1,2), “The mounting US trade sanctions are driving HiSilicon to the brink and many engineers have left the Huawei IC design arm’s team in Taiwan.”This will not just affect the company’s operations, but may also hamper its plans for the future. Another report also revealed that Huawei is planning on building its own 45nm fabs for the severely outdated 45nm chips.





    How about looking at what the company has stated - recently - instead of what DigiTimes speculated on a year ago?

    https://www.verdict.co.uk/huawei-creating-jobs-everywhere-except-the-usa/

    The most recent fabrication nodes are of zero use to over 90% of the world's needs. In fact it is in nobody's interest to use them outside of very limited use cases. It wouldn't make economic sense.

    Take a peek at HiSilicon's product catalog and you'll see why they employ 7,000 people. 

    https://www.o.hisilicon.com/

    Kirin isn't everything at HiSilicon and Kirin isn't dead either. If you believe the rumours you might even see a Samsung fabbed new Kirin chip next year. 

    And this just fresh out of the HiSilicon gate. Already 100% Chinese. 

    https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/08/02/huawei-hiair-low-latency-image-transmission-tech/

    You didn't say you were talking about Huawei's phone business. You said Huawei.

    It doesn't matter, though because Huawei's phone business isn't dead either. It is being regeared but it won't be instant. However, it won't take years either. It is using MediaTek and QC chipsets (just as it always has!). The difference being that a few years ago they were using less and less processors from them and now they will use more until the re-gearing process is finished. 

    Honor was spun off. If you are a betting man, put a bet on Honor returning to the Huawei fold as soon as it reaches processor independence.

    In the meantime tablets, watches, fitness bands, earbuds, sound equipment, smartscreens, monitors, PCs, laptops etc are being brought to market. That's just CE.

    With China being the biggest user of processors, what do you think will happen once they can satisfy there own needs and take a pass on US options? What will happen then?

    Remember that both ASML and TSMC have lost billions in trade due to extraterritorial US 'sanctions'. They are not happy and are making their discontent known.

    The Chinese handset manufacturers 'punished' Qualcomm by ordering more chips from MediaTek which in turn took it to the number one position worldwide.

    MediaTek is now moving into the ultra premium band.

    Samsung is also moving up a gear. 

    ASML and TSMC haven't lost billions. They still have more demand than they can satisfy, and its all outside of China.

    ASML shouldn’t be singled out as the only semiconductor company to be restricted. If the US wants to cut off China, at the very least, ban American technology too.

    Finally, ASML finds itself in the eye of a geopolitical battle. It was just a matter of time, once the Trump administration started to put the squeeze on China. The US is hell-bent on stopping, or at the very least slowing down, the Chinese advance on the world stage. Everything was fine as long as China was manufacturing the easy stuff, but now that it starts posing a threat – economically, technologically and therefore ultimately militarily – to the American hegemony, the fight is on.

    According to the reports, initially by Nikkei Asian Review and more recently by Reuters, US pressure led the Dutch government to withhold the license required for ASML to ship an EUV scanner to a Chinese customer. This is almost certainly SMIC, China’s most advanced semiconductor company. At this point, the foundry has no need for EUV in manufacturing. But, the same way Intel, TSMC and Samsung had machines to play with years before they even considered moving EUV into production, SMIC obviously will require some time to learn the tricks of the trade.

    I wouldn’t be so sure, however, that it was just US pressure that put SMIC’s order on hold. The Dutch government presented its own China strategy right before ASML’s export license wasn’t renewed. Called ‘A new balance’, it marks a new way of weighing national interests. Basically, short-term commercial interests are no longer drowning out all the other ones. Eyes have been opened to China keenly taking advantage of the possibilities that open, Western economies offer, while not returning the favor at home. The Dutch government acknowledges this asymmetry is both an economic and a national security threat.

    The document specifically mentions semiconductors and lithography as powering technological revolutions, which China intends to leverage to move up in the world. Shattering the previously widely held assumption that China would never be able to catch up to the West, or if it did, it would be to our advantage too – the government no longer considers China’s ascension on the world stage necessarily a good thing. Just as technology can change our future, so can a more powerful China.

    So, indeed, if the US government has been pressuring the Dutch, it might not have had to press all that hard. It’s not likely that the whole strategy was written merely to appease US wishes, either. Though only the US pursues an aggressive course of action, most Western countries have adopted a more stern stance on China in recent years. The US did – even before the stable genius became president.

    There’s much to be said for the Netherlands and Europe rethinking their approach to China, but the US’ pursuit of global dominance isn’t our fight. With that in mind, it’s interesting to note that ASML is a very convenient target for the Trump administration. Curtailing the company will have next to no impact domestically, unlike when chip sales to ZTE were temporarily banned. So what about, say, Applied Materials? Will its sales be restricted as well? That company wants as much a piece of the action in booming China as ASML does. What about Intel? Surely its chips can be used to power advanced weaponry.

    ASML’s technology is of exceptional strategic importance, though. Cutting off the Chinese from EUV will leave them forever stuck at 7-ish nanometer process technology, preserving the country’s dependence on imports for the most advanced semiconductor technology. To cut it off completely, however, one would have to convince TSMC to stop supplying the mainland (the Taiwanese foundry recently shipped the first EUV-made chips to Huawei).

    Still, it doesn’t seem fair to single out ASML when loads of US tech companies are allowed to continue doing business there. So, unless the Dutch government itself feels it would be wise to cut off China from EUV or use it as leverage in dealings with China, it shouldn’t ban the export. The sad reality of it, of course, is that if the US would really flex its muscles on the issue, the Netherlands would most likely cave.



    Oh, and the Kirin 9000 from Samsung, rumored to be in production back in March, crickets...

    Get you story straight about Mediatek, which is also a Taiwanese company;

    Huawei's affiliated HiSilicon attempted to challenge MediaTek's leading position, only to fail in the wake of the US-China trade war. MediaTek has benefited from Huawei's woes, and Huawei, once the second largest customer of TSMC and the third largest semiconductor buyer in the world, has gone back to square one, and started making changes.

    Demand for processors right now is outstripping supply pretty much across the board. That isn't the point. ASML and TSMC want to do business with Chinese companies and both CEOs have come out and said so. And very directly. The ASML CEO made it crystal clear that the US approach would not work. 

    TSMC now has problems recruiting tech staff as China pumps up its efforts for semiconductor self sufficiency. TSMC is being subjected to an extraterritorial double whammy. They have lost billions in not being able to trade with Huawei and now have the absolute definite realisation of Huawei becoming a direct competitor down the line. It's now not a case of 'if' but 'when'. And through no fault of their own.

    The Dutch government had no autonomous role in impeding the SMIC deal. It had been signed off by ASML without government intervention until the US stepped up pressure. In fact, it seems the machinery will be delivered anyway in the not too distant future. 

    The world (perhaps excepting the US) knows full well that China's ultimate goal is the post silicon semiconductor age and there is nothing that can be done to stop that. 

    The Dutch know full well that business with China is not 'short term gain'. It is absolutely necessary because if the Chinese stop doing business with ASML permanently, it won't be a pretty sight. 

    As for Samsung and Kirin, there may well be things we aren't aware of yet:

    https://www.hardwaretimes.com/chinese-semiconductor-firm-claims-its-etching-equipment-is-already-use-at-samsung-tsmc-5nm-fabs/



    My link disagrees with your post, and your link doesn't actually make sense. If China has etching technology to 5nm, why would they not use it for their own production at SMIC? 

    Perhaps it is a temporal issue with ASML equipment bans, given that Denmark changed its policies late in the process. Countries around the world are tiring of the PRC's bullying and mercantilism. That is a fact.

    I really don't care much what China comes up with internally, but given their militarism, especially against Taiwan, I'm happy to see advanced Western technology barred from sale to the PRC, and that's a trend that's accelerating.

    GeorgeBMac accused me of being an "anti Communist"; do you agree with him? Seems odd on his part, living in the U.S.

    I see myself as an anti-authoritarian, and the covers the PRC, as well as many other countries.


    an example of the PRC's economic bullying tactics...

    https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/china-ban-taiwan-pineapples-backfires-210000757.html

    China’s surprise ban on pineapple imports from Taiwan five months ago was widely viewed as an attempt to undermine President Tsai Ing-wen’s standing with a political constituency. Trade data show the move has produced anything but the desired effect.

    First-half numbers collected by Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture show growers of the fruit on the island have fared better since China blocked imports starting March 1, as sympathetic Japanese shoppers stepped in to provide support. Shipments to Japan surged more than eightfold to 16,556 tons in the four months through June from a year ago. A domestic campaign to drum up demand also helped.

    The helping hand from Japanese importers has come as a pleasant surprise for Taiwan’s rattled farmers who were bracing for a plunge in prices following the move by China, which termed it as a normal precaution to protect biosecurity. The spiky fruit is among a long list of products from Australian wine to coal and lobster China has targeted for sanctions to help gain leverage in trade disputes.

    “The bleeding was stopped before it even began,” said Chen Li-i, an official at the Council of Agriculture in Taipei.

    Japan has now replaced China as the major overseas destination for Taiwan’s pineapples. While it’s unclear how long the ban will last -- the shift may well reverse once the restrictions are lifted -- the humble tropical fruit has become an unlikely symbol of defiance in the region’s geopolitical intrigues. Amid all the sabre-rattling by Beijing, Japan and the island democracy have expressed a broad desire to forge closer ties. Leaders in Tokyo see their own security directly linked to that of Taiwan, which China asserts is its territory.

    Pineapples are an important source of income for farmers in central and southern Taiwan. Around 11% of the tropical fruit harvested in Taiwan are sold overseas. Until the ban, they were almost entirely shipped to China.


    The etching process is simply one of many steps in processor fabrication. The point was that this technology from AMEC does not use US IP and is already being used for volume production in tier 1 settings. That is the trend that will be followed.

    There are currently plans for 30 new fabs in China (more than any other country). 13 of those 30 are destined for processor development. The others are destined for development of the remaining semiconductor branches. These are what we know about. I'm sure there are other advances in technology that are brewing and specifically in the field of lithography that are currently under wraps. 

    By reading between the lines on various comments from executives at Huawei and HiSilicon, three years is the time frame they seem to be working on to be entirely self sufficient. 

    In fact, the supply of one specific area within the 5G handset market that currently prevents Huawei from shipping 5G in its new phones will be resolved next year by home-grown technology. You can guess which country is going to lose out (again!) in that area and see its entire supply chain negatively impacted. 

    Of course no one knows for sure how long it will take Chinese companies to self sufficiently get below 5nm but it will be long before most people think. 

    I don't know what you 'are' or what you 'aren't' but you are blinded by bias when it comes to your stance on China. That impacts your credibility. 
    You might see the same if you looked in a mirror, but my bias is the result of China's Militarization, and what the result of that will be.

    Maybe China will catch up to the West sooner than predicted. but that just means more threats to the West, not just more competition.
  • Reply 19 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    You know that I am speaking of phones, but thanks for playing;

    https://www.lightreading.com/5g/huawei-once-5g-leader-cant-offer-5g-in-its-newest-phones/d/d-id/771203#.YQatdcIsDsY.twitter

    Huawei has even struggled in China, its home market. "One-time market leader Huawei saw its share decline to 10% in Q2 2021 from 32% in Q2 2020," wrote analyst Ethan Qi of Counterpoint Research on the firm's website. "Vivo and OPPO now lead the market with 23% and 21% shares, respectively, followed by Xiaomi and Apple. All leading OEMs benefited from Huawei's decline and grew their market shares."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-loses-cellular-gear-market-share-outside-china-11615118400



    https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/08/20/huawei-build-45nm-chip-hisilicon-engineers-walking-out/

    According to reports from DigiTimes (1,2), “The mounting US trade sanctions are driving HiSilicon to the brink and many engineers have left the Huawei IC design arm’s team in Taiwan.”This will not just affect the company’s operations, but may also hamper its plans for the future. Another report also revealed that Huawei is planning on building its own 45nm fabs for the severely outdated 45nm chips.





    How about looking at what the company has stated - recently - instead of what DigiTimes speculated on a year ago?

    https://www.verdict.co.uk/huawei-creating-jobs-everywhere-except-the-usa/

    The most recent fabrication nodes are of zero use to over 90% of the world's needs. In fact it is in nobody's interest to use them outside of very limited use cases. It wouldn't make economic sense.

    Take a peek at HiSilicon's product catalog and you'll see why they employ 7,000 people. 

    https://www.o.hisilicon.com/

    Kirin isn't everything at HiSilicon and Kirin isn't dead either. If you believe the rumours you might even see a Samsung fabbed new Kirin chip next year. 

    And this just fresh out of the HiSilicon gate. Already 100% Chinese. 

    https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/08/02/huawei-hiair-low-latency-image-transmission-tech/

    You didn't say you were talking about Huawei's phone business. You said Huawei.

    It doesn't matter, though because Huawei's phone business isn't dead either. It is being regeared but it won't be instant. However, it won't take years either. It is using MediaTek and QC chipsets (just as it always has!). The difference being that a few years ago they were using less and less processors from them and now they will use more until the re-gearing process is finished. 

    Honor was spun off. If you are a betting man, put a bet on Honor returning to the Huawei fold as soon as it reaches processor independence.

    In the meantime tablets, watches, fitness bands, earbuds, sound equipment, smartscreens, monitors, PCs, laptops etc are being brought to market. That's just CE.

    With China being the biggest user of processors, what do you think will happen once they can satisfy there own needs and take a pass on US options? What will happen then?

    Remember that both ASML and TSMC have lost billions in trade due to extraterritorial US 'sanctions'. They are not happy and are making their discontent known.

    The Chinese handset manufacturers 'punished' Qualcomm by ordering more chips from MediaTek which in turn took it to the number one position worldwide.

    MediaTek is now moving into the ultra premium band.

    Samsung is also moving up a gear. 

    ASML and TSMC haven't lost billions. They still have more demand than they can satisfy, and its all outside of China.

    ASML shouldn’t be singled out as the only semiconductor company to be restricted. If the US wants to cut off China, at the very least, ban American technology too.

    Finally, ASML finds itself in the eye of a geopolitical battle. It was just a matter of time, once the Trump administration started to put the squeeze on China. The US is hell-bent on stopping, or at the very least slowing down, the Chinese advance on the world stage. Everything was fine as long as China was manufacturing the easy stuff, but now that it starts posing a threat – economically, technologically and therefore ultimately militarily – to the American hegemony, the fight is on.

    According to the reports, initially by Nikkei Asian Review and more recently by Reuters, US pressure led the Dutch government to withhold the license required for ASML to ship an EUV scanner to a Chinese customer. This is almost certainly SMIC, China’s most advanced semiconductor company. At this point, the foundry has no need for EUV in manufacturing. But, the same way Intel, TSMC and Samsung had machines to play with years before they even considered moving EUV into production, SMIC obviously will require some time to learn the tricks of the trade.

    I wouldn’t be so sure, however, that it was just US pressure that put SMIC’s order on hold. The Dutch government presented its own China strategy right before ASML’s export license wasn’t renewed. Called ‘A new balance’, it marks a new way of weighing national interests. Basically, short-term commercial interests are no longer drowning out all the other ones. Eyes have been opened to China keenly taking advantage of the possibilities that open, Western economies offer, while not returning the favor at home. The Dutch government acknowledges this asymmetry is both an economic and a national security threat.

    The document specifically mentions semiconductors and lithography as powering technological revolutions, which China intends to leverage to move up in the world. Shattering the previously widely held assumption that China would never be able to catch up to the West, or if it did, it would be to our advantage too – the government no longer considers China’s ascension on the world stage necessarily a good thing. Just as technology can change our future, so can a more powerful China.

    So, indeed, if the US government has been pressuring the Dutch, it might not have had to press all that hard. It’s not likely that the whole strategy was written merely to appease US wishes, either. Though only the US pursues an aggressive course of action, most Western countries have adopted a more stern stance on China in recent years. The US did – even before the stable genius became president.

    There’s much to be said for the Netherlands and Europe rethinking their approach to China, but the US’ pursuit of global dominance isn’t our fight. With that in mind, it’s interesting to note that ASML is a very convenient target for the Trump administration. Curtailing the company will have next to no impact domestically, unlike when chip sales to ZTE were temporarily banned. So what about, say, Applied Materials? Will its sales be restricted as well? That company wants as much a piece of the action in booming China as ASML does. What about Intel? Surely its chips can be used to power advanced weaponry.

    ASML’s technology is of exceptional strategic importance, though. Cutting off the Chinese from EUV will leave them forever stuck at 7-ish nanometer process technology, preserving the country’s dependence on imports for the most advanced semiconductor technology. To cut it off completely, however, one would have to convince TSMC to stop supplying the mainland (the Taiwanese foundry recently shipped the first EUV-made chips to Huawei).

    Still, it doesn’t seem fair to single out ASML when loads of US tech companies are allowed to continue doing business there. So, unless the Dutch government itself feels it would be wise to cut off China from EUV or use it as leverage in dealings with China, it shouldn’t ban the export. The sad reality of it, of course, is that if the US would really flex its muscles on the issue, the Netherlands would most likely cave.



    Oh, and the Kirin 9000 from Samsung, rumored to be in production back in March, crickets...

    Get you story straight about Mediatek, which is also a Taiwanese company;

    Huawei's affiliated HiSilicon attempted to challenge MediaTek's leading position, only to fail in the wake of the US-China trade war. MediaTek has benefited from Huawei's woes, and Huawei, once the second largest customer of TSMC and the third largest semiconductor buyer in the world, has gone back to square one, and started making changes.

    Demand for processors right now is outstripping supply pretty much across the board. That isn't the point. ASML and TSMC want to do business with Chinese companies and both CEOs have come out and said so. And very directly. The ASML CEO made it crystal clear that the US approach would not work. 

    TSMC now has problems recruiting tech staff as China pumps up its efforts for semiconductor self sufficiency. TSMC is being subjected to an extraterritorial double whammy. They have lost billions in not being able to trade with Huawei and now have the absolute definite realisation of Huawei becoming a direct competitor down the line. It's now not a case of 'if' but 'when'. And through no fault of their own.

    The Dutch government had no autonomous role in impeding the SMIC deal. It had been signed off by ASML without government intervention until the US stepped up pressure. In fact, it seems the machinery will be delivered anyway in the not too distant future. 

    The world (perhaps excepting the US) knows full well that China's ultimate goal is the post silicon semiconductor age and there is nothing that can be done to stop that. 

    The Dutch know full well that business with China is not 'short term gain'. It is absolutely necessary because if the Chinese stop doing business with ASML permanently, it won't be a pretty sight. 

    As for Samsung and Kirin, there may well be things we aren't aware of yet:

    https://www.hardwaretimes.com/chinese-semiconductor-firm-claims-its-etching-equipment-is-already-use-at-samsung-tsmc-5nm-fabs/



    My link disagrees with your post, and your link doesn't actually make sense. If China has etching technology to 5nm, why would they not use it for their own production at SMIC? 

    Perhaps it is a temporal issue with ASML equipment bans, given that Denmark changed its policies late in the process. Countries around the world are tiring of the PRC's bullying and mercantilism. That is a fact.

    I really don't care much what China comes up with internally, but given their militarism, especially against Taiwan, I'm happy to see advanced Western technology barred from sale to the PRC, and that's a trend that's accelerating.

    GeorgeBMac accused me of being an "anti Communist"; do you agree with him? Seems odd on his part, living in the U.S.

    I see myself as an anti-authoritarian, and the covers the PRC, as well as many other countries.


    an example of the PRC's economic bullying tactics...

    https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/china-ban-taiwan-pineapples-backfires-210000757.html

    China’s surprise ban on pineapple imports from Taiwan five months ago was widely viewed as an attempt to undermine President Tsai Ing-wen’s standing with a political constituency. Trade data show the move has produced anything but the desired effect.

    First-half numbers collected by Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture show growers of the fruit on the island have fared better since China blocked imports starting March 1, as sympathetic Japanese shoppers stepped in to provide support. Shipments to Japan surged more than eightfold to 16,556 tons in the four months through June from a year ago. A domestic campaign to drum up demand also helped.

    The helping hand from Japanese importers has come as a pleasant surprise for Taiwan’s rattled farmers who were bracing for a plunge in prices following the move by China, which termed it as a normal precaution to protect biosecurity. The spiky fruit is among a long list of products from Australian wine to coal and lobster China has targeted for sanctions to help gain leverage in trade disputes.

    “The bleeding was stopped before it even began,” said Chen Li-i, an official at the Council of Agriculture in Taipei.

    Japan has now replaced China as the major overseas destination for Taiwan’s pineapples. While it’s unclear how long the ban will last -- the shift may well reverse once the restrictions are lifted -- the humble tropical fruit has become an unlikely symbol of defiance in the region’s geopolitical intrigues. Amid all the sabre-rattling by Beijing, Japan and the island democracy have expressed a broad desire to forge closer ties. Leaders in Tokyo see their own security directly linked to that of Taiwan, which China asserts is its territory.

    Pineapples are an important source of income for farmers in central and southern Taiwan. Around 11% of the tropical fruit harvested in Taiwan are sold overseas. Until the ban, they were almost entirely shipped to China.


    The etching process is simply one of many steps in processor fabrication. The point was that this technology from AMEC does not use US IP and is already being used for volume production in tier 1 settings. That is the trend that will be followed.

    There are currently plans for 30 new fabs in China (more than any other country). 13 of those 30 are destined for processor development. The others are destined for development of the remaining semiconductor branches. These are what we know about. I'm sure there are other advances in technology that are brewing and specifically in the field of lithography that are currently under wraps. 

    By reading between the lines on various comments from executives at Huawei and HiSilicon, three years is the time frame they seem to be working on to be entirely self sufficient. 

    In fact, the supply of one specific area within the 5G handset market that currently prevents Huawei from shipping 5G in its new phones will be resolved next year by home-grown technology. You can guess which country is going to lose out (again!) in that area and see its entire supply chain negatively impacted. 

    Of course no one knows for sure how long it will take Chinese companies to self sufficiently get below 5nm but it will be long before most people think. 

    I don't know what you 'are' or what you 'aren't' but you are blinded by bias when it comes to your stance on China. That impacts your credibility. 
    You might see the same if you looked in a mirror, but my bias is the result of China's Militarization, and what the result of that will be.

    Maybe China will catch up to the West sooner than predicted. but that just means more threats to the West, not just more competition.
    I look in the mirror and see no bias.

    I comment on what I know. Most of it is supported by the relevant links. 

    I know there is literally nothing to support US claims on Huawei. As of course there is nothing to support its prohibition of handset sales either in the US. The Meng extradition case is a farce and the latest documentation has proved that beyond a shadow of doubt. 

    Instead of playing by established rules, the US chose to try and wreck the entire system. It was a protectionist move in an absurd attempt to artificially maintain its technology lead.

    The US has swung wildly from one damaging plan to another, desperate to stop China matching it in technology or, gasp, getting ahead of it.

    Huawei offered to licence everything (source code included) to a US entity. Things don't come any more transparent than that. Of course the offer was rejected because the whole reason for the current situation really has nothing to do with the claims. 

    It speaks of 'clean' networks while having been exposed time and time again as having some of the dirtiest networks out there.

    It has been caught time and time again flouting its own promises on not spying on allies. It has lost the trust of its allies. 'America First' was the claim.

    Allies would be bullied, bludgeoned and bought if necessary.

    The rest of the world took note and is reacting. 

    That is exactly the kind of behaviour that has led blocs like the EU to seek technological independence. Of course, China has been left with no alternative but to completely sever technology connections with the US on key technologies. The US quite literally pulled the rug out from under their feet and to a lesser degree did the same with anyone from anywhere willing to do business with China.

    It literally insists that you get 'permission' from Uncle Sam before you can do business with certain companies. That's right, sovereign states have to get permission just because US technology may have been used in part of a product design. Let me be clear here. This is something you establish prior to sale. You do don't do it after the sale. But the US is hell bent on destroying the idea of global supply chains. 

    Only a fool would believe that strategy has legs.

    So, and it's completely logical, anyone currently using US technology will seek to find alternatives for the long haul. That is happening as I write. The EU processor initiative was designed to bring technological independence to the bloc, specifically so it would not depend on external politics.

    China had a similar plan but it has been turbo charged beyond belief now.

    The US semiconductor landscape will not be recognisable a few years down the road. The damage has already been done. There is no way things will be the same again. 

    Is any of what I'm saying actually incorrect? Of course not. Can you paint me a picture of US semiconductor prosperity from any source?

    Not even US semiconductor organisations representing literally thousands of US companies have been able to find anything positive in what is going on.

    The first and biggest single hit was losing over 11 billion dollars in trade to Huawei.

    Well that trade (11 billion dollar's worth) will go straight to US competitors in the EU and Asia and fund Chinese companies to create yet more competitors.

    Someone, somewhere forgot that US companies actually need revenues to fund R&D for future developments.

    Or will government fund that too? Because one of the big US gripes was that the Chinese government was subsidising its companies.

    Again, someone obviously didn't realise that governments are funding companies everywhere, but that includes the US!

    Someone even banded the idea of pumping US government money into Nokia and Ericsson to make them more competitive.

    Now we have semiconductor shortages and the US suddenly wants to plough billions of government money into the semiconductor industry.

    Better late than never but we already know how this will end. US dominance in many fields is passing. It's just happening even more quickly now.

    This isn't bias. They are hard, cold facts.

    They are also very easy to understand. The problem is that the US elected the worst possible president at the worst possible time and it is now a question of watching everything play out.

    Don't eat your popcorn all at once!

    Tally up those Chinese made mobile phone sales in the EU and compare them to just five years ago.

    Look at Apple's handset business model today and compare it to five years ago. They are radically different.

    Now think about the next five years and India, Latin America and Africa. Who is sowing the seeds of growth in those markets today and who will emerge as the dominant players in those regions?
    edited August 6 spheric
  • Reply 20 of 38
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,426member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    Here we go again.  Selling a boatload of phones at razor-thin margins versus Apple selling less phones at a profit is not a success.

    I'd rather sell a million phones with a 30% profit, than sell 100 million phones at 1% profit.  Does this really have to be rehashed again?
    As a business person you may want that but why on earth would you want that as a consumer?

    Especially when most of Xiaomi's high end products are providing in demand phones and a plethora of services and thousands of ecosystem products offered through partners. Even if they do so on 'razor thin' phone margins. 

    Most of the other big Chinese brands also offer great phones too, along with huge ecosystems.

    The issue has been expansion outside China. Until recently it was Huawei which ruled the roost outside China but for the last three years both Oppo and Xiaomi have been expanding rapidly in Europe. So much that Xiaomi is now becoming a go-to brand here and the Chinese brands are bringing more and more of their ecosystem partner products to the rest of the world. 

    Apple literally sat on most of its money for a decade. It really didn't do much with it. I'd rather they simply charged me less, which ironically, is what they've been doing over the last few years on many models which, ironically again, they needed to do as part of efforts to stimulate demand. 

    And let's not forget, every sale to Xiaomi means one less potential sale to Apple. 

    Are you trying to equate Samsung's or Xiami's ecosystem to that of Apple?
    I think they could better be compared to that of Windows:  open architecture that has its advantages but also disadvantages such as less stability and less security and privacy.

    But, in the end, like HP or Lenovo, they are selling a chunk of hardware, not a complete, integrated package of hardware, software and services.

    (And, by that, I am not disparaging either one:  both have advantages and disadvantages.  They are just different approaches.)

    No. I'm saying there is a business plan here and it works. In terms of hardware peripherals it knocks Apple out of the park but they have a services branch too.

    Historically it has been China that has seen most of that market drive but now, they are pushing things in Europe too.

    Just today, on my way into Barcelona, I saw two huge billboard ads announcing the arrival of Midea in Spain. So, after HiSense and Haier, Midea is breaking into Europe as well. After announcing that almost all of its products will support HarmonyOS. 

    Xiaomi shouldn't be judged solely on its phone margins. They have a bigger plan in place. No one knows exactly how it will play out in the long term but there is method to the madness. 
    Huawei died; Xiaomi replaced Huawei.

    Growth beyond that, not so much.
    Huawei is anything but dead. It is re-gearing on literally every front. And all of them with the ultimate goal of eliminating US technology from its supply chains.

    Honor is back up and running as an independent company and will eventually return to Huawei.

    Huawei is pushing a ton of non phone hardware into the CE market.

    This year it is forecast to increase its 5G base station share worldwide.

    It is moving fast in the automobile market with hardware and self driving tech.

    It is breaking records in AI.

    It is pushing ahead with its data centre and solar energy divisions.

    HarmonyOS 3 will be revealed next month

    Hisilicon is increasing its workforce and Huawei has been investing aggressively in chip fabrication technology since 2019.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. 

    Dead, you say? 
    You know that I am speaking of phones, but thanks for playing;

    https://www.lightreading.com/5g/huawei-once-5g-leader-cant-offer-5g-in-its-newest-phones/d/d-id/771203#.YQatdcIsDsY.twitter

    Huawei has even struggled in China, its home market. "One-time market leader Huawei saw its share decline to 10% in Q2 2021 from 32% in Q2 2020," wrote analyst Ethan Qi of Counterpoint Research on the firm's website. "Vivo and OPPO now lead the market with 23% and 21% shares, respectively, followed by Xiaomi and Apple. All leading OEMs benefited from Huawei's decline and grew their market shares."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-loses-cellular-gear-market-share-outside-china-11615118400



    https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/08/20/huawei-build-45nm-chip-hisilicon-engineers-walking-out/

    According to reports from DigiTimes (1,2), “The mounting US trade sanctions are driving HiSilicon to the brink and many engineers have left the Huawei IC design arm’s team in Taiwan.”This will not just affect the company’s operations, but may also hamper its plans for the future. Another report also revealed that Huawei is planning on building its own 45nm fabs for the severely outdated 45nm chips.





    How about looking at what the company has stated - recently - instead of what DigiTimes speculated on a year ago?

    https://www.verdict.co.uk/huawei-creating-jobs-everywhere-except-the-usa/

    The most recent fabrication nodes are of zero use to over 90% of the world's needs. In fact it is in nobody's interest to use them outside of very limited use cases. It wouldn't make economic sense.

    Take a peek at HiSilicon's product catalog and you'll see why they employ 7,000 people. 

    https://www.o.hisilicon.com/

    Kirin isn't everything at HiSilicon and Kirin isn't dead either. If you believe the rumours you might even see a Samsung fabbed new Kirin chip next year. 

    And this just fresh out of the HiSilicon gate. Already 100% Chinese. 

    https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/08/02/huawei-hiair-low-latency-image-transmission-tech/

    You didn't say you were talking about Huawei's phone business. You said Huawei.

    It doesn't matter, though because Huawei's phone business isn't dead either. It is being regeared but it won't be instant. However, it won't take years either. It is using MediaTek and QC chipsets (just as it always has!). The difference being that a few years ago they were using less and less processors from them and now they will use more until the re-gearing process is finished. 

    Honor was spun off. If you are a betting man, put a bet on Honor returning to the Huawei fold as soon as it reaches processor independence.

    In the meantime tablets, watches, fitness bands, earbuds, sound equipment, smartscreens, monitors, PCs, laptops etc are being brought to market. That's just CE.

    With China being the biggest user of processors, what do you think will happen once they can satisfy there own needs and take a pass on US options? What will happen then?

    Remember that both ASML and TSMC have lost billions in trade due to extraterritorial US 'sanctions'. They are not happy and are making their discontent known.

    The Chinese handset manufacturers 'punished' Qualcomm by ordering more chips from MediaTek which in turn took it to the number one position worldwide.

    MediaTek is now moving into the ultra premium band.

    Samsung is also moving up a gear. 

    ASML and TSMC haven't lost billions. They still have more demand than they can satisfy, and its all outside of China.

    ASML shouldn’t be singled out as the only semiconductor company to be restricted. If the US wants to cut off China, at the very least, ban American technology too.

    Finally, ASML finds itself in the eye of a geopolitical battle. It was just a matter of time, once the Trump administration started to put the squeeze on China. The US is hell-bent on stopping, or at the very least slowing down, the Chinese advance on the world stage. Everything was fine as long as China was manufacturing the easy stuff, but now that it starts posing a threat – economically, technologically and therefore ultimately militarily – to the American hegemony, the fight is on.

    According to the reports, initially by Nikkei Asian Review and more recently by Reuters, US pressure led the Dutch government to withhold the license required for ASML to ship an EUV scanner to a Chinese customer. This is almost certainly SMIC, China’s most advanced semiconductor company. At this point, the foundry has no need for EUV in manufacturing. But, the same way Intel, TSMC and Samsung had machines to play with years before they even considered moving EUV into production, SMIC obviously will require some time to learn the tricks of the trade.

    I wouldn’t be so sure, however, that it was just US pressure that put SMIC’s order on hold. The Dutch government presented its own China strategy right before ASML’s export license wasn’t renewed. Called ‘A new balance’, it marks a new way of weighing national interests. Basically, short-term commercial interests are no longer drowning out all the other ones. Eyes have been opened to China keenly taking advantage of the possibilities that open, Western economies offer, while not returning the favor at home. The Dutch government acknowledges this asymmetry is both an economic and a national security threat.

    The document specifically mentions semiconductors and lithography as powering technological revolutions, which China intends to leverage to move up in the world. Shattering the previously widely held assumption that China would never be able to catch up to the West, or if it did, it would be to our advantage too – the government no longer considers China’s ascension on the world stage necessarily a good thing. Just as technology can change our future, so can a more powerful China.

    So, indeed, if the US government has been pressuring the Dutch, it might not have had to press all that hard. It’s not likely that the whole strategy was written merely to appease US wishes, either. Though only the US pursues an aggressive course of action, most Western countries have adopted a more stern stance on China in recent years. The US did – even before the stable genius became president.

    There’s much to be said for the Netherlands and Europe rethinking their approach to China, but the US’ pursuit of global dominance isn’t our fight. With that in mind, it’s interesting to note that ASML is a very convenient target for the Trump administration. Curtailing the company will have next to no impact domestically, unlike when chip sales to ZTE were temporarily banned. So what about, say, Applied Materials? Will its sales be restricted as well? That company wants as much a piece of the action in booming China as ASML does. What about Intel? Surely its chips can be used to power advanced weaponry.

    ASML’s technology is of exceptional strategic importance, though. Cutting off the Chinese from EUV will leave them forever stuck at 7-ish nanometer process technology, preserving the country’s dependence on imports for the most advanced semiconductor technology. To cut it off completely, however, one would have to convince TSMC to stop supplying the mainland (the Taiwanese foundry recently shipped the first EUV-made chips to Huawei).

    Still, it doesn’t seem fair to single out ASML when loads of US tech companies are allowed to continue doing business there. So, unless the Dutch government itself feels it would be wise to cut off China from EUV or use it as leverage in dealings with China, it shouldn’t ban the export. The sad reality of it, of course, is that if the US would really flex its muscles on the issue, the Netherlands would most likely cave.



    Oh, and the Kirin 9000 from Samsung, rumored to be in production back in March, crickets...

    Get you story straight about Mediatek, which is also a Taiwanese company;

    Huawei's affiliated HiSilicon attempted to challenge MediaTek's leading position, only to fail in the wake of the US-China trade war. MediaTek has benefited from Huawei's woes, and Huawei, once the second largest customer of TSMC and the third largest semiconductor buyer in the world, has gone back to square one, and started making changes.

    Demand for processors right now is outstripping supply pretty much across the board. That isn't the point. ASML and TSMC want to do business with Chinese companies and both CEOs have come out and said so. And very directly. The ASML CEO made it crystal clear that the US approach would not work. 

    TSMC now has problems recruiting tech staff as China pumps up its efforts for semiconductor self sufficiency. TSMC is being subjected to an extraterritorial double whammy. They have lost billions in not being able to trade with Huawei and now have the absolute definite realisation of Huawei becoming a direct competitor down the line. It's now not a case of 'if' but 'when'. And through no fault of their own.

    The Dutch government had no autonomous role in impeding the SMIC deal. It had been signed off by ASML without government intervention until the US stepped up pressure. In fact, it seems the machinery will be delivered anyway in the not too distant future. 

    The world (perhaps excepting the US) knows full well that China's ultimate goal is the post silicon semiconductor age and there is nothing that can be done to stop that. 

    The Dutch know full well that business with China is not 'short term gain'. It is absolutely necessary because if the Chinese stop doing business with ASML permanently, it won't be a pretty sight. 

    As for Samsung and Kirin, there may well be things we aren't aware of yet:

    https://www.hardwaretimes.com/chinese-semiconductor-firm-claims-its-etching-equipment-is-already-use-at-samsung-tsmc-5nm-fabs/



    My link disagrees with your post, and your link doesn't actually make sense. If China has etching technology to 5nm, why would they not use it for their own production at SMIC? 

    Perhaps it is a temporal issue with ASML equipment bans, given that Denmark changed its policies late in the process. Countries around the world are tiring of the PRC's bullying and mercantilism. That is a fact.

    I really don't care much what China comes up with internally, but given their militarism, especially against Taiwan, I'm happy to see advanced Western technology barred from sale to the PRC, and that's a trend that's accelerating.

    GeorgeBMac accused me of being an "anti Communist"; do you agree with him? Seems odd on his part, living in the U.S.

    I see myself as an anti-authoritarian, and the covers the PRC, as well as many other countries.


    an example of the PRC's economic bullying tactics...

    https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/china-ban-taiwan-pineapples-backfires-210000757.html

    China’s surprise ban on pineapple imports from Taiwan five months ago was widely viewed as an attempt to undermine President Tsai Ing-wen’s standing with a political constituency. Trade data show the move has produced anything but the desired effect.

    First-half numbers collected by Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture show growers of the fruit on the island have fared better since China blocked imports starting March 1, as sympathetic Japanese shoppers stepped in to provide support. Shipments to Japan surged more than eightfold to 16,556 tons in the four months through June from a year ago. A domestic campaign to drum up demand also helped.

    The helping hand from Japanese importers has come as a pleasant surprise for Taiwan’s rattled farmers who were bracing for a plunge in prices following the move by China, which termed it as a normal precaution to protect biosecurity. The spiky fruit is among a long list of products from Australian wine to coal and lobster China has targeted for sanctions to help gain leverage in trade disputes.

    “The bleeding was stopped before it even began,” said Chen Li-i, an official at the Council of Agriculture in Taipei.

    Japan has now replaced China as the major overseas destination for Taiwan’s pineapples. While it’s unclear how long the ban will last -- the shift may well reverse once the restrictions are lifted -- the humble tropical fruit has become an unlikely symbol of defiance in the region’s geopolitical intrigues. Amid all the sabre-rattling by Beijing, Japan and the island democracy have expressed a broad desire to forge closer ties. Leaders in Tokyo see their own security directly linked to that of Taiwan, which China asserts is its territory.

    Pineapples are an important source of income for farmers in central and southern Taiwan. Around 11% of the tropical fruit harvested in Taiwan are sold overseas. Until the ban, they were almost entirely shipped to China.


    The etching process is simply one of many steps in processor fabrication. The point was that this technology from AMEC does not use US IP and is already being used for volume production in tier 1 settings. That is the trend that will be followed.

    There are currently plans for 30 new fabs in China (more than any other country). 13 of those 30 are destined for processor development. The others are destined for development of the remaining semiconductor branches. These are what we know about. I'm sure there are other advances in technology that are brewing and specifically in the field of lithography that are currently under wraps. 

    By reading between the lines on various comments from executives at Huawei and HiSilicon, three years is the time frame they seem to be working on to be entirely self sufficient. 

    In fact, the supply of one specific area within the 5G handset market that currently prevents Huawei from shipping 5G in its new phones will be resolved next year by home-grown technology. You can guess which country is going to lose out (again!) in that area and see its entire supply chain negatively impacted. 

    Of course no one knows for sure how long it will take Chinese companies to self sufficiently get below 5nm but it will be long before most people think. 

    I don't know what you 'are' or what you 'aren't' but you are blinded by bias when it comes to your stance on China. That impacts your credibility. 
    You might see the same if you looked in a mirror, but my bias is the result of China's Militarization, and what the result of that will be.

    Maybe China will catch up to the West sooner than predicted. but that just means more threats to the West, not just more competition.
    I look in the mirror and see no bias.

    I comment on what I know. Most of it is supported by the relevant links. 

    I know there is literally nothing to support US claims on Huawei. As of course there is nothing to support its prohibition of handset sales either in the US. The Meng extradition case is a farce and the latest documentation has proved that beyond a shadow of doubt. 

    Instead of playing by established rules, the US chose to try and wreck the entire system. It was a protectionist move in an absurd attempt to artificially maintain its technology lead.

    The US has swung wildly from one damaging plan to another, desperate to stop China matching it in technology or, gasp, getting ahead of it.

    Huawei offered to licence everything (source code included) to a US entity. Things don't come any more transparent than that. Of course the offer was rejected because the whole reason for the current situation really has nothing to do with the claims. 

    It speaks of 'clean' networks while having been exposed time and time again as having some of the dirtiest networks out there.

    It has been caught time and time again flouting its own promises on not spying on allies. It has lost the trust of its allies. 'America First' was the claim.

    Allies would be bullied, bludgeoned and bought if necessary.

    The rest of the world took note and is reacting. 

    That is exactly the kind of behaviour that has led blocs like the EU to seek technological independence. Of course, China has been left with no alternative but to completely sever technology connections with the US on key technologies. The US quite literally pulled the rug out from under their feet and to a lesser degree did the same with anyone from anywhere willing to do business with China.

    It literally insists that you get 'permission' from Uncle Sam before you can do business with certain companies. That's right, sovereign states have to get permission just because US technology may have been used in part of a product design. Let me be clear here. This is something you establish prior to sale. You do don't do it after the sale. But the US is hell bent on destroying the idea of global supply chains. 

    Only a fool would believe that strategy has legs.

    So, and it's completely logical, anyone currently using US technology will seek to find alternatives for the long haul. That is happening as I write. The EU processor initiative was designed to bring technological independence to the bloc, specifically so it would not depend on external politics.

    China had a similar plan but it has been turbo charged beyond belief now.

    The US semiconductor landscape will not be recognisable a few years down the road. The damage has already been done. There is no way things will be the same again. 

    Is any of what I'm saying actually incorrect? Of course not. Can you paint me a picture of US semiconductor prosperity from any source?

    Not even US semiconductor organisations representing literally thousands of US companies have been able to find anything positive in what is going on.

    The first and biggest single hit was losing over 11 billion dollars in trade to Huawei.

    Well that trade (11 billion dollar's worth) will go straight to US competitors in the EU and Asia and fund Chinese companies to create yet more competitors.

    Someone, somewhere forgot that US companies actually need revenues to fund R&D for future developments.

    Or will government fund that too? Because one of the big US gripes was that the Chinese government was subsidising its companies.

    Again, someone obviously didn't realise that governments are funding companies everywhere, but that includes the US!

    Someone even banded the idea of pumping US government money into Nokia and Ericsson to make them more competitive.

    Now we have semiconductor shortages and the US suddenly wants to plough billions of government money into the semiconductor industry.

    Better late than never but we already know how this will end. US dominance in many fields is passing. It's just happening even more quickly now.

    This isn't bias. They are hard, cold facts.

    They are also very easy to understand. The problem is that the US elected the worst possible president at the worst possible time and it is now a question of watching everything play out.

    Don't eat your popcorn all at once!

    Tally up those Chinese made mobile phone sales in the EU and compare them to just five years ago.

    Look at Apple's handset business model today and compare it to five years ago. They are radically different.

    Now think about the next five years and India, Latin America and Africa. Who is sowing the seeds of growth in those markets today and who will emerge as the dominant players in those regions?
    You are very long winded, with weak and/or optimistic arguments, and you have shown bias for China, and you wrong about significant details, but you have had your say.

    Unfortunately for you, what I have stated about the PRC is true, that the West is growing tired of the bullying from the PRC, and the obvious mercantilism, and is especially concerned over attempts by the PRC to change the rules of order, that have worked so well for the global community. Oh, and really not happy about the PRC's human rights violations, crackdown on democracy in Hong Kong, or the threats against Taiwan. The militarism that the PRC is displaying is very concerning as well, and has had the effect of bolstering our alliances around the world, including in the EU. Who would have imagined the Germany would station a frigate in the South China Sea.

    https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/how-a-german-frigate-in-the-south-china-sea-may-upend-beijing-berlin-relations/

    Not to worry. Relations between Germany and China were already strained before tasking the frigate to the SCS.

    As Merkel’s lengthy term comes to an end, the frigate deployment may be the beginning of a sea change in Germany’s China approach.

    Signs are growing in number that relations between China and the European Union are experiencing serious troubles, and in some cases Chinese diplomacy with specific EU members, such as Lithuania and Sweden, has become outright icy in nature. However, the largest of the EU’s economies, Germany, has long sought a balancing policy between China and its Western friends and allies, with the government of Angela Merkel ever-cognizant of both U.S.-led pressure to develop a stronger multilateral approach to countering Chinese power, while at the same time ensuring the stability of robust German trade relations with Beijing.

    However, with the Merkel administration soon to be coming to a close, there will be considerable early pressure on her successor to clarify the country’s China policies, and the question is now whether, based on both domestic politics and foreign pressures, Germany can maintain its current “hedging” policy toward Beijing in the near term. The announcement late last year that Germany would be sending a frigate to the Asia-Pacific region for the latter half of this year, in an operation that will include a transit of the politically tempestuous South China Sea, is the strongest indication yet of the conundrum Germany is facing. Berlin is trying to demonstrate solidarity with Europe and the U.S. in addressing Chinese assertiveness, while avoiding being targeted by Beijing’s retaliatory “wolf warrior diplomacy,” which has recently affected other governments seen as “insulting the Chinese nation.”

    The German Navy’s Brandenburg-class frigate Bayern (Bavaria), departed the base at Wilhelmshaven this week, and will be operating in the Asia-Pacific region until early next year. The vessel is scheduled to make calls in several regional ports, including in Australia, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam, and is also planning to traverse the South China Sea this December. German authorities have stressed that the Bayern will be using traditional sea lanes in the South China Sea, and will avoid entering the Taiwan Straits. This will mark the first time in almost two decades that a German naval vessel has entered the South China Sea, with the country’s Defense Ministry framing the mission as one of support for Asia-Pacific regional partners as well as demonstrating German commitments to freedom of the seas.

    China’s response to this news has so far been cautious, with a Chinese Foreign Ministry comment in March of this year including a reminder that while the South China Sea is subject to international law, other governments should view that status as an “excuse to undermine the sovereignty and security of littoral countries.” The nationalist Global Times Chinese news service recently reiterated this stance, stating that as long as the German vessel respected international law and avoided “willful actions” in the South China Sea, there would be no diplomatic damage caused. The Chinese government has also deferred a decision on whether the Bayern can dock in Shanghai during its regional tour until it receives further information regarding the specific “intentions” of the vessel’s mission. It was also suggested by a Chinese military news service that the ultimate decision to allow the Shanghai port visit may wait until after Germany’s September elections.


    Still, as you are so fond of stating, "we will see".

    Unfortunately for China, their economy isn't expected to surpass the U.S. until about 2032, if ever, and the chances of that are decreasing with Xi Jinping in power. I blame this on Xi Jinping's authoritarian rule, over anything else. China's aging population, compounded by its forced birth rate, almost guarantees that the PRC will not escape the "middle age trap", and will end up with a diminishing population, having never become rich.

    Have a nice day.
    edited August 6
Sign In or Register to comment.